Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

UNAUTHORISED TELEPHONE MONITORING

10.4 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit monitoring of private telephone conversations by unauthorised persons.
The attention of the public was excited by Questions in the House on 17th November last year on the tapping of the telephone conversations of right hon. and hon. Members. Naturally, I accept without qualification the assurance given to the House on that occasion by the Prime Minister that there is no tapping of the telephones of right hon. and hon. Members. The House will, however, recognise, and I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree, that that undertaking applied only to tapping of telephone conversations by the authority of the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or other responsible Ministers.
I would like to make it clear at the outset that my Bill does not seek to restrict in any way the provision whereby telephone conversations of any person, be he a Member of the House or not, shall be the subject of monitoring in the interests of the security of the State, provided that such monitoring or tapping is undertaken on the authority of the Secretary of State. Nor would it restrict the provisions which already exist to permit the police to carry out their work by this means and that also of the officers of Customs and Excise. These things were recommended in Part III of the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors appointed to inquire into the interception of communications, as presented to Parliament by the then Prime Minister in October, 1957. My sole objective is to prevent unauthorised persons from using mechanical devices

which enable them to listen to or to record the private telephone conversations of people using the Post Office telephone service.
It is important to note that in the Report which was submitted to the House in 1957, and to which I have referred, the Committee, which comprised the late Lords Birkett and Monckton and the present Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker), stated in paragraph 130 that whilst unauthorised tapping of telephone conversations might be more difficult in this country than in America, there was no certainty that such tapping did not occur. The Committee continued, in paragraph 131:
In these circumstances Parliament may wish to consider whether legislation should be passed to render the unauthorised tapping of a telephone line an offence.
I recognise that there are certain difficulties of a technical nature, but I am advised that these need not present a serious problem. For example, anyone who has a telephone installed by the G.P.O. on a party line is informed of this arrangement by the appropriate telephone manager and is, therefore, aware that he cannot expect his conversations to be treated as confidential. There is every possibility that another subscriber on the party line may accidentally overhear the conversation by picking up another instrument. There is also the inevitable problem which occurs as a result of mechanical difficulties and failures at the telephone exchange which will result in what most people know as a crossed line, which again results in other persons overhearing a conversation between people using a separate telephone. These are hazards to which every subscriber is subject and which he must accept as inevitable.
There is, however, a grave distinction between an accidental interception by a third party of a telephone conversation and the deliberate tapping of a telephone or telephone lines with the specific intention of obtaining information which may be of pecuniary value to the person obtaining the information or which is a deliberate and calculated intrusion upon the liberty and privacy of the individual—an individual who is not suspected of any criminal activity or of anything likely to be detrimental to the security of the State.


Not for the first time, Mr. Bernard Braden rendered a service to the public by his exposure of the ease whereby any person or corporate body may arrange for a private telephone to be tapped through agencies which are willing to do this for a fee without question or inquiry as to the reason why the person engaging them wishes another individual's telephone to be tapped and the conversation monitored.
In his programme "On the Braden Beat" on 17th December last year, Mr. Braden revealed that he had been able to discover without difficulty two agencies who were delighted to tell him that on payment of a fee they would arrange for anyone's telephone to be tapped. They were not in the least concerned with the reasons why Mr. Braden's investigators might require this to be done.
There are three reasons why I believe this practice to be extremely dangerous. In the nature of business today, it is customary for members of boards of directors or the executives of companies to transmit vital information to each other or to business associates by telephone. It therefore follows that trade secrets, business negotiations and other matters affecting the progress of private or public companies or nationalised industries, and, consequently, the employment of many people, could be jeopardised. The State has a duty to protect corporate bodies and individuals against the abuse of a privacy which is vital for the progress of industry and commerce.
Secondly, it is surely quite wrong that judicial decisions, for example, in cases of divorce, should be prejudiced or even influenced by information or evidence obtained by these means and which is totally contrary to the standards of liberty and personal privacy which have been safeguarded so vigorously by this House over the centuries.
A case was reported in The Times of 26th January involving the recording of private telephone conversations of several individuals who featured in a divorce action. In the Evening Standard of 25th January, with reference to that case, it was reported that private detectives had made secret tape recordings for some six months. I cannot believe that there is any lawyer in the House who would

approve of the violation of privacy exposed by that case.
It has been represented to me also—I do not stress this too far but it has been represented—that, in addition to the danger of trade secrets and so forth being disclosed and the intrusion on privacy, there is the sinister threat of an unfriendly Government obtaining the services of an agency, or, for that matter, doing the work themselves, to monitor the private telephones of civil servants, members of the Government or other responsible persons who might be compelled in an emergency to discuss matters on the telephone which would affect the security of the State and would normally be subject to the Official Secrets Act.
My Bill has the support of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and in all parties. I am most grateful to the very many hon. Members who have taken the trouble to write, telephone or speak to me to give me their cordial assurances of wholehearted support. I have not had a single example of an hon. Member expressing other than agreement with this proposed legislation.
I have asked the House to consider three imperative reasons why the Bill should be allowed to commence its progress through Parliament, and I call in aid of my submission the Report of Privy Councillors to which I referred earlier. Since that Report was presented to Parliament, just over nine years ago, there has been conclusive evidence that the suspicion expressed by the Committee is no longer a matter of doubt and that the unauthorised tapping of telephone conversations which the Committee clearly felt to be wholly undesirable now occurs. The suggestion contained in paragraph 131 of the Report should, therefore, be acted upon.
Finally, I appeal to every hon. and right hon. Member to support the Bill not only because I believe that it will be welcomed by the public at large, by the legal profession and by all who are concerned with the security of our nation but, most of all, because privacy and liberty are one and indivisible. This is a comparatively small Measure but it is designed to protect something which is at the foundation of our national heritage,


namely, the right of every honest citizen to security and privacy.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Besse11, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Peter Mills, Sir Gerald Nabarro, and Mr. Peter Ogden.

UNAUTHORISED TELEPHONE MONITORING

Bill to prohibit monitoring of private telephone conversations by unauthorised persons, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th April and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES

10.14 a.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) (Amendment) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
The Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, lays down the privileges and immunities to which members of the staff of diplomatic missions are entitled and gives the force of law in the United Kingdom to certain provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. One effect of the Act was to restrict the privileges which could be enjoyed by United Kingdom citizens employed by Commonwealth and foreign diplomatic missions in this country. It has, however, been considered necessary to provide for the cases of certain individuals, few in number, who possess both citizenship of the United Kingdom and citizenship of the mission in which they are serving in this country.
The Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) Order, 1964, accordingly provided that members of Commonwealth diplomatic missions who possess dual citizenship should be treated as though they did not have United Kingdom citizenship. This Order was made under powers contained in Section 2(6) of the 1964 Act, and Article 2(2) of the Order lists the countries to which these provisions apply. The present Order is merely the latest of a

series of amending Orders made necessary by the addition to the Commonwealth of newly independent member countries. The amendment is effected by adding the names of the countries concerned—Singapore, Guyana, Lesotho, Botswana and Barbados—to Article 2(2) of the principal Order to which I have referred.
The Order is made under Section 2(6) and Section 6(2) of the 1964 Act, the latter subsection giving power to amend the principal Order previously made under the former subsection. It will be clear to the House, therefore, that the Order does not involve any alteration in the nature or extent of diplomatic privileges but simply applies the existing law contained in the Act and the principal Order to the above-mentioned newly independent Commonwealth countries. I know that it will be the wish of both sides of the House that this Order should now be approved.

10.17 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I thank the Minister of State for his brief and lucid explanation of what even he will admit to be a quite complicated matter, but I have one or two questions to ask. I am very conscious, Mr. Speaker, of a reminder which you gave a month or so ago that Orders of this kind are extremely narrowly drawn and I shall, therefore, do my best not to offend as I did on that occasion.
Article 38 of the Vienna Convention, as set out in Schedule 2 to the 1964 Act, made clear that any national of the receiving State employed by a foreign mission receives immunity only in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. The first Order made under that Act provided that nationals of Commonwealth countries employed in diplomatic missions, even though they were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, should be treated as though they were foreigners for the purposes of diplomatic privileges. We all recognise that this was not only a sensible provision but a necessary change in order to take into account developments in the Commonwealth; and the last Order added Malta and The Gambia. As the Minister said, this Order merely adds further countries to the list of those qualifying in this way.


My first question is the general one: does the immunity now to be accorded to the representatives of the five new countries in Britain and the immunity accorded to the representatives of Britain in the five new countries proceed simultaneously? In other words, are the privileges and immunity always the same for the representatives in this country and the representatives of this country in the other countries concerned?
My second question relates to the timing of the Order. Why has it been brought forward at this precise moment? Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether another Order will be necessary whenever there is a substantial change in the membership of the Commonwealth? In particular, will another Order be necessary to deal with future representation in Great Britain of the new States in the West Indies which almost at this very moment are coming into their new status of association?
My third question is to ask the Minister for his interpretation of
… official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.
I am anxious to know, for example, the position in regard to newspaper articles written by representatives of a Commonwealth State in this country. Are the writers of those articles—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One cannot discuss the privileges and immunities themselves except as they apply to the countries referred to in the Order. We are discussing whether we add those new countries to those already granted certain privileges and immunities.

Mr. Wood: I knew that this question would be very difficult, Mr. Speaker, because the Order is obviously very narrowly drawn. but am I not right in thinking that we are discussing whether the privileges which you have in mind should now be enjoyed by those new Commonwealth countries, and is it not in order for me to ask whether the privileges that will be enjoyed if the Order is approved by the House includes certain privileges about which I am in doubt?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it is, but the question must apply merely to the countries that are mentioned in the Order.

Mr. Wood: It very much applies to a country that is mentioned in the Order,

because it refers to what I think was an unfortunate article written by a representative of one of those five countries about the relationship between Britain and that country. I do not know whether the article is privileged under the Order. But whether or not it is privileged, I hope that the Minister will see fit to make representations to the Government of Lesotho about the action here of their High Commissioner in writing an article in this month's edtition of New World, in which he expressed views directly contrary to those of the present Prime Minister, Chief Jonathan, at the Basutoland Independence Conference last June.
I shall not read the article, because I think that that would strain your toleration too far, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman probably has it in mind, and I should be grateful if he could give me an answer on the principle of the matter. Whatever rules we and other countries make, and are making today, for the immunity and protection of official representatives, they are presumably framed to allow those representatives the better to represent their Government without let or hindrance. But in cases like this, where views are expressed which are not only offensive to the receiving country but are plainly in contradiction to the known views of the home Government, I ask the Minister at the very least to undertake to make perfectly clear that they offend against the spirit, if not also against the letter, of the Order.

Mr. George Thomas: I am very grateful for the customary courtesy shown by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) this morning; he always approaches these subjects with a great deal of courtesy.
The Order simply extends to these new members of the Commonwealth, as sovereign Powers. the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the other High Commissioners who serve in this country. To that extent, there is no change in the privileges applying to the High Commissioner of Lesotho any more than to the High Commissioner of Canada. I have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I would have thought that if Lesotho's High Commissioner is out of harmony with his own Government that is a matter for them.

Mr. Evelyn King (Dorset, South): In so far as the High Commissioner misrepresents his own Government, that might be an internal matter between the High Commissioner and the Government, but the point is whether he would be covered by privilege if he were to libel or slander a British subject.

Mr. Thomas: If the person referred to is of dual United Kingdom and Lesotho citizenship, the Order would give him immunity from civil jurisdiction of the courts in respect of the newspaper article. The Order has nothing to do with immunities and privileges outside the United Kingdom. Although I understand the reason for raising the matter, I would soon be in trouble with Mr. Speaker if I went into details, and the House will appreciate that I must confine myself to the Order.
However, I promise the right hon. Member for Bridlington that I shall write to him about the points he has raised, and perhaps we can discuss any doubts that still remain in his mind.

10.26 a.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I do not want to introduce an unnecessary note of discord into the air of geniality which has pervaded our discussions so far, but the Order extends diplomatic privilege to the representatives of a number of countries, to their staffs and, under certain circumstances, to subjects of the United Kingdom working for them. The Minister said nothing about how many people the new extensions will apply to, nor did he tell us the number of people to whom the immunities and privileges already apply. To bring that point into order, I should like to ask to what figure the new additions will raise the number of people who will now enjoy diplomatic immunity in this country.
Those people are exempt from the process of civil law and I believe that unless the diplomatic privilege is withdrawn from them they are also exempt from the criminal law, although I am not sure on that point. They have enormous privileges, both concerning the operation of the law and on the question of taxation. Their numbers are growing year by year—I recognise the reason—until

one day we shall find that more people are exempt from the law than are subject to it.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman would take an early opportunity to put clearly before the House and the country the numbers of those people that the Order affects. How many people are not subject to our civil and criminal laws, and the laws concerning Purchase Tax and Excise Duties? Those matters should be brought to the notice of the House. I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to answer my questions now necessarily, but I hope that he will take an early opportunity, perhaps by means of an Answer to a Question, to say what the dimensions of this matter are.

10.30 a.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I shall be very brief. I want, however, to make one single point—which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has, to a large extent, already made—and one suggestion. We all accept—certainly I do—that we must treat these new countries with precisely the same degree of respect with which, we believe, we treat the older countries. I accept and I understand the Minister of State's difficulties.
But the fact remains that, with the vast extension in the number of countries, the number of diplomatic staff enjoying these privileges is becoming almost intolerable. Since it might cause awkwardness to other countries, I shall not draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the personal difficulties which have arisen, of which he may be aware, such as matters of debt and other things that I would not like to mention. But these have arisen and are likely to arise again.
Surely, when a new country for the first time seeks diplomatic representation, it would not be unreasonable to place some limit on the number of diplomatic staff it might have here. We might point out to it that we are willing and anxious to grant immunity but that we should like to know how many staff will be involved. Is that question ever asked? Is there any reason why it should not be asked? It would reduce to a large extent the area of the problem if the number of staff bore some relation to the size of the country.

10.32 a.m.

Mr. Thomas: Do I need the permission of the House to speak again, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps the House would have refused it, in which case I would have been saved quite a lot of trouble.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) exaggerated so much that I must draw attention to what he said. He claimed that we were now getting to the position when more people had diplomatic privileges than not. I am afraid that he lives in a fairy land. What concerns the House today is whether we are to deal with people of the new Commonwealth on the same basis as we deal with the diplomatic missions of older countries here. As more new sovereignties are acknowledged, there are bound to be more diplomatic missions. The number of British missions abroad has increased as the number of overseas missions in London has increased.
The Order deals only with those people who enjoy dual nationality. The missions of these four newly independent countries already have immunity under the Act but not under this Order, which merely deals with dual citizenship. I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to extend the same facilities to these countries as we have extended to others with which it is our privilege to work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) (Amendment) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.

LONDON TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES (PENSIONS)

10.34 a.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the London Transport (Alteration of Wages Grades Pension Schemes) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1556), dated 7th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.
I say at the outset that we on this side of the House realise that it is the intention of the London Transport Board to provide a better pension scheme for its employees. We entirely welcome that. It is not our purpose to frustrate or delay the new scheme in any way—quite the reverse. We wish it well.
Nevertheless, this Order gives rise to concern. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has already shown its concern and has made a report upon it. I understand the history of the matter to be that before 1954 there was no general occupational pension scheme for wage grades in the British Transport Commission but that, in that year, a scheme was set up which was an unfunded scheme—in other words, no funds were set aside for it.
In 1962, the responsibility was transferred to the Railways Board following the Transport Act, 1962. In 1966, a new scheme was set up which was still an unfunded scheme and that scheme was administered under the responsibility of the London Transport Board. At the same time, it was decided to introduce a completely new scheme on a funded basis and this, of course, involves the appointment of trustees and the transferring of the funds into the names of those trustees.
Now we come to the legal difficulties which we feel arise under the Order. Both the Minister of Transport and the Board itself have power to establish pension schemes. The Minister's power in this respect is granted by Section 74(1) of the 1962 Act, which reads:
The Minister may make orders—
(a) with respect to the provision of pensions by the Boards and the Holding Company and by the subsidiaries of the Boards and of the Holding Company for or in respect of—
(i) their employees, or persons who have been in their employment …


Thus Section 74 gives power to the Minister to establish a pension scheme; Section 73 gives power to the Boards in the following terms:
Subject to the next following section, each of the Boards and the Holding Company shall have power to pay pensions and enter into obligations under pension schemes.
In this Order a decision has been taken to allow the Board to set up a new scheme by its powers under Section 73 of the Act. The Order deals with the interim period between cessation of the old scheme and the coming into force of the new scheme and provides for the termination by employees of membership of the old scheme. The new scheme has to have the consent of the Minister, who must be satisfied that no employees are prejudiced by the new arrangements. The authority for that is in Section 74(2):
Without prejudice to the powers conferred by the foregoing subsection, the Minister may make orders—
(a) for enabling … all or any of the participants in a pension scheme to become instead participants in another pension scheme.
Presumably it is this provision that is being used in the Order. Section 74(6) says:
Orders under this section shall be so framed as to secure that no person other than the boards, the Holding Company and any subsidiary of any Board, or of the Holding Company, is placed in any worse position by reason of the order.
The House must be satisfied, therefore, that no employee could possibly be prejudiced by the new arrangements. It is here that the real difficulty arises.
In this Order, we are given no details of the new scheme. In Article 1(2) we read
… 'the New Fund' means the London Transport Pension Fund which is to be introduced on 1st January 1967 by the Board with the consent of the Minister of Transport;
That is all we are told in the Order. This matter has been gone into very fully by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which met on 16th February. The facts are that the Order was made on 7th December last and two days later, on 9th December, a "skeleton" deed or, in other words, an interim deed, was executed. I have with me a copy of that deed. This is the interim trust deed which was executed two days after the Order was made.
The first recital to that deed is as follows:
The Board are desirous of establishing a Pension Scheme to be effective on and from the first day of January, 1967 … for the purpose of paying pensions to wages staff and certain other staff of the Board and to that end have determined to establish under irrevocable trusts as on and from the said date a Pension Scheme to be known as the London Transport Pension Fund … for providing retirement pensions and other benefits for such of the said staff as are or shall hereafter become eligible to participate therein … in accordance with the regulations governing the Fund to be set out in a Definitive Trust Deed … and in Rules … made under the provisions of the Definitive Deed.
As I understand it, the definitive trust deed has still not been executed. The Parliamentary Secretary appears to agree that this is so. I understand that it may be many months before a definitive trust deed is ready and is executed.
We thus have the curious position that the definition in the Order of the new fund refers indirectly to an instrument, the interim deed, which was not in existence when the Order was made on 7th December. This seems to us to be a very unusual procedure and we should like to hear how the Parliamentary Secretary can explain it.
We must make quite certain that no employees are in a worse position as a result of the new scheme. We are apprehensive that some employees may be in a worse position. We are informed that the age of entry under the new scheme is to be higher than the age of entry under the existing scheme. Under the new scheme, an employee cannot join until he is 25 years of age. Under the existing scheme, he can join at the age of 21. We are also informed that to earn benefits under either scheme, 10 years' service is essential. One can, therefore, visualise cases in which the dependants of a man who dies between the ages of 31 and 35 might be in a worse position as a result of the proposed changes. We should therefore like to have the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance on this point also.
My final point relates to Section 92 of the Transport Act, 1962, which is the Definition Section. It defines a pension scheme in these words:
'pension scheme' includes any form of arrangement for the payment of pensions, whether subsisting by virtue of Act of Parliament, trust, contract or otherwise".


We do not consider that on 7th December, the day when the Order was made, there was a new pension scheme in existence which fulfilled that definition. Certainly, there was no new pension scheme subsisting by virtue of Act of Parliament. There was no new pension scheme subsisting by virtue of a trust, because the interim trust deed was executed two days later. We do not think that there was a new pension scheme existing by virtue of contract either.
This point was dealt with in great detail by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose Chairman said on 16th February:
But the pension fund was established by this Interim Trust Deed, so that the fund was there on 9th December, and I find it a little strange that the Order could not have waited two days, when it would have been nice and tidy and there would have been a document which clearly established the fund, which in the Order itself is not much more than an expression of intention. I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that, without the Trust Deed, there was a legal obligation, or that the employees had legal rights.
If we are right in this, if there was no subsisting new pension scheme by virtue of Act of Parliament, trust or contract, we should not approve this Order, which provides for termination of membership of the 1954 and 1966 schemes and does not provide for any new scheme in a correct and legal way. Those are our worries and doubts. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to try to allay them.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I welcome the opportunity to explain the Order and I welcome the assurance of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) that he and his hon. Friends do not in any way wish to challenge the establishment of a new and better pension fund for the employees of London Transport. I understand the apprehensions which have been created about the mode of making the Order rather than the purpose for which it is made. I hope that I shall be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the reasons why these actions were taken.
There is no need for me to go into the historical background, because the hon. Member has given it briefly and accurately, concerning the old British Transport Commission flat-rate scheme.

I therefore come straight away to the Order against which the Prayer is directed.
In 1966, after negotiations between the London Transport Board and the trade unions and other bodies, details were agreed for a new pension deal for the workers of London Transport. This new deal involved the setting up of a funded pension scheme which would provide for employees' pensions on a much more generous scale than those provided in 1954 and carried over in 1966 in the unfunded London Transport (Male Wages Grades) Pension Scheme as it was called. The Board and the negotiating bodies agreed that the new arrangements should become effective from 1st January, 1967.
The establishment of a new pension fund involved many actuarial and other detailed problems. I am advised that it is normal practice in the commercial world for a new fund to be set up on the basis of an interim trust deed to be followed some time after, and sometimes a substantial time after, by a definitive deed. This was the only means by which the new London Transport Pension Fund could possibly be introduced in this short time between the opening of the negotiations in 1966 and the effective date negotiated between the Board and the unions of 1st January, 1967.
The Minister was advised that the new fund could be set up by the London Transport Board in that way under the powers of Section 73 which the hon. Member for Chippenham has quoted, of the Transport Act, 1962. Under that Section, the Board has power to pay pensions and to enter into obligations in pension schemes subject to the provisions of Section 74 of the Act. The latter Section gives the Minister power to make Orders about pensions. Such an Order was made in 1962, the so-called British Transport Reorganisation (Pensions of Employees) (No. 3) Order, 1962, Article 17 of which had the effect that the Board was not to enter into a pension scheme without the Minister's consent. It is under those provisions that the present case has been dealt with. When the provisions of the new proposed fund were sufficiently firm, arising from the negotiations between the Board and the unions, announcements were made to the staff of the London


Transport Board giving sufficient detail to enable employees to decide whether the new scheme was one which they wanted to join.
In addition, employees were provided with forms of application for membership of the new fund and for the surrender of their rights under the existing schemes. All this was put in hand in the autumn of last year, and 30th November, 1966, was the latest date for the exercising of options by the persons concerned. In addition, the London Transport Board prepared an interim trust deed, which is the deed referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and that deed was finally executed with the Minister's consent on 9th December, 1966.
The definitive deed which the interim deed envisages has not yet been finalised and may not be for some time. But, of course, the outline of the scheme of pensions is explained in a booklet issued in the month of July, 1966, which opens with the words:
The new Pension Fund to be set up on 1st January, 1967, described in this booklet, will provide retirement pensions for men and women in full-time employment with London Transport in the wages grades. It has been planned jointly by the Board and by the Trade Unions principally concerned. It will be very different from the present arrangements and a big improvement on them. It will be open to men and women.
I may say in passing that the fact that, for the first time, this scheme is open to both men and women gives particular pleasure to my right hon. Friend.
The establishment of the new fund in this way left the problem of avoiding an overlapping of the new fund with the existing schemes, and, as the existing schemes were provided by Statutory Instruments, they could be amended only in the same way. In order to effect the necessary amendments to the 1954 and 1966 schemes so as to avoid overlapping, it was necessary to make the Instrument which is now under discussion. I must emphasise that all this Order does is to make certain modifications to the existing schemes so as to avoid overlapping. The Order does not itself set up the new fund.
The Order was made on 7th December. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, at that time the interim trust deed had not been executed and, therefore, it was

necessary in the Order to define the "new fund" in the manner adopted in Article 1(2) of the Order; that is to say,
… the London Transport Pensions Fund which is to be introduced on the 1st January, 1967, by the Board with the consent of the Minister of Transport.
Had the interim trust deed been executed by 7th December, it would have been possible in the Order to define the new fund by reference to the deed. But, in any case the deed was only an interim deed which did not more than formalise an existing commitment between the Board and its employees. As it was essential not to delay the making of the Order, the form of words used in the Order had to be adopted.
In that connection, let me reply directly to the criticism made by the hon. Gentleman. The point here was that of Parliamentary time and the necessity of making the Order before the Christmas Recess and in advance of 1st January, 1967, which was the effective date negotiated between the Board and the unions. As a result, the Statutory Instrument was made slightly in advance of the making of the interim trust deed. However, my right hon. Friend was aware at that time not only of the details of the fund given in the announcement made by the London Transport Board but of the fact that the interim trust deed was about to be made.

Mr. Awdry: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that it is slightly unusual procedure to do it in that way?

Mr. Swingler: Had it been possible to make the Order slightly after instead of slightly before, that might have been found to be more satisfactory. It will be appreciated that, as a result of the negotiations and the agreement between the Board and the unions, the scheme had to become operative from 1st January, 1967. My right hon. Friend was anxious to take no chances about the making of the necessary Statutory Instrument in advance of Parliament's Christmas Recess. Therefore, it was lodged two days in advance of the interim trust deed being executed. It is true that the interim trust deed was executed only two days after the Order was made, but the timing of its execution was unavoidably in doubt in the


period immediately prior to the making of the Order.
Now let me turn to the question whether the requirements of Section 74(6) of the Transport Act, 1962, have been met. As the hon. Gentleman says, that requires that an Order must be framed so as to secure that no person is placed in any worse position by reason of the Order. I want to emphasise that the provisions of the new fund were agreed between the London Transport Board and the unions in the months of 1966. A good indication of the superiority of the new scheme over the old is given by the fact that 68 per cent. of eligible employees have opted to join the new fund on the basis of the details set out in the booklet published in July, 1966.
However, I must draw attention to the fact that Section 74(6) of the Act provides that an Order shall not be invalid by reason that it does not avoid placing all persons in any worse position. It goes on to provide that, if the Minister is satisfied that any Order has failed to secure that result, the Minister shall as soon as may be make the necessary amending Order. There are also provisions for any dispute about the effect of an Order to be referred to a referee. Any case which it was appropriate to deal with under those provisions would be dealt with accordingly.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the discussion which took place before the Select Committee about the age limits for eligibility in the new scheme. I grant straight away that there is hypothetically a possibility that a very small percentage might be worsened as compared with the old scheme. For actuarial reasons, the rights under the new scheme are dated from the age of 25 so as to give the 40-year period of working life from 25 to 65. On the flat-rate basis of the old scheme, the rights arose after 10 years of membership from the age of 21. Thus there arises the theoretical possibility that, among those who had the right to come under the old scheme between the ages of 31 and 35, there are some who could have been disadvantaged. We regard that as an almost negligible possibility, but, as I have said, naturally my right hon. Friend will take that into account on the basis, of course, that those who are joining the employment of London Transport after 1st July, 1966,

no longer have the option to be under the old scheme; as part of their terms of employment, they must accept the terms and conditions of the new scheme which gives such greatly improved benefits to them.
We have been discussing a matter which is somewhat complex, because of the actuarial provisions, and which it is difficult to reduce to simple terms. I hope that I have managed to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Board has gone to great lengths to produce a timely and fully satisfactory arrangement which will be of substantial and improved benefit to its employees, and that, before consenting to the arrangements, my right hon. Friend was wholly satisfied that they were entirely appropriate.
Any pension scheme, which must attempt to meet the varied circumstances of a large body of employees, is bound to affect individuals according to their circumstances. It is for that sort of reason that Section 74(6) of the 1962 Act provides the ultimate safeguard of determination of any dispute about the effects of an Order.
In these circumstances, I hope that the House will agree that the position of all individuals is fully safeguarded under the Order.

Question put and negatived.

HOSPITALS (PAY BEDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member informed the Minister that he proposes to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Dean: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have, and I understand that the Minister will be attending.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Dean: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising a subject which was down for debate last Wednesday in the form of a Prayer but unfortunately was not reached on that occasion owing


to the length of time which was taken with earlier business. I am grateful, too, to the Minister who has agreed to come here to answer the points which I wish to put to him.
The Statutory Instrument to which I wish to draw attention is No. 1553 which came into operation on 1st January of this year. It deals with changes in the pay-bed Regulations, and I wish to ask a number of questions on this which are of considerable interest to those people who are personally concerned. The Regulations make minor amendments in charges for pay beds and amenity beds, and abolish the limit on charges by doctors and dentists for hospital inpatient treatment.
As I say, this is of personal interest to the growing number of people who are prepared to pay for the specialist of their choice. Many of the people concerned are of moderate means. Indeed, more than 2 million people now have health insurance cover through provident associations, and membership of these schemes is growing at an accelerated rate. Quite often employers help with the subscriptions through group schemes. In fact, more and more employers are coming to regard assistance of this kind as a valuable fringe benefit which they consider is an appropriate one to offer to their employees.
It is possible to get good cover for hospital treatment for a man with a wife and two children for the modest sum of about 10s. a week. I do not wish on this occasion to discuss the significance of these developments, but I should like to pay a tribute to the provident associations and to employers for the way in which they have brought this type of cover within the reach of a large number of people. In our view people should be free to spend their money on health if they so wish. We shall not get an improvement in the National Health Service by preventing people from doing things for themselves, and we should be ware that in the pursuit of public affluence we do not end up with private squalor.
In that connection, I believe that the memorandum produced by the Central Consultants and Specialists Committee made a very appropriate defence of these arrangements when it said:

There are sound social and economic reasons for allowing the continuance of private practice in hospitals and, indeed, for extending the meagre facilities at present available. The opportunity of treatment as a private patient should not be denied to those who desire, for perfectly legitimate reasons, to have the Consultant of their choice, to choose a time for admission which is convenient to themselves and to enjoy privacy in the hospital. Patients who opt for private accommodation thereby reduce the pressure on public accommodation. Moreover, a leaven of private practice has a stimulating effect upon standards of service.

Dr. David Owen: Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that though it might provide a good deal of privileged service for those who pay, by allowing private patients to take consultants' time, this acts against that very valuable time being spread fairly and evenly throughout the National Health Service?

Mr. Dean: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall be dealing with this a little later, but I believe, at the same time, that the more we can encourage people to make provision for themselves, the more likely we are to raise the standards of service, to reduce pressure on the National Health Service, and, perhaps, more important, to prevent doctors going abroad who might otherwise stay. These seem to me to be valuable points.
I am grateful to the Minister for coming here at fairly short notice. I have not as yet put any questions in the course of the few remarks that I have made. I would merely say that I welcome the Minister's statement that he does not intend to abolish pay beds, but to uphold the pledge which was given by the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan when the National Health Service was introduced.
After those preliminary remarks, may I now turn to these Regulations and ask one or two questions about them? The first point, and perhaps the least important, is that these Regulations give a small but welcome relief in the charges which private patients pay when they are away from their beds, when they are not occupying their beds for more than one day. This will be appropriate, particularly in the case of psychiatric patients who may well go home perhaps for a long weekend. Does this apply to what are called the "no ceiling" beds? In other words, does it apply to all private beds?


My second question concerns the proviso to Regulation 3. As I understand it, Regulation 8A does not apply in the case of Section 4 patients paying charges less than those prescribed in the National Health Service (Pay-Bed Accommodation in Hospitals etc.) Regulations 1961, and such patients should not have their charges reduced during periods of absence. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the charges are not to be reduced in this case.
Much more important than that relatively minor change is the charge for pay beds as a whole, which has been rising steeply, and requires a fairer method of assessment. We shall await with interest the Minister's subsequent statements on this matter.
The main change in these Regulations concerns the abolition of the limit on charges made by doctors for patients in hospitals. As the House knows, these limitations were introduced in 1948, and they have an honourable history. Before the National Health Service, the majority of private beds were established by donors to help people of moderate means. This principle was carried forward in the National Health Service in respect of limitation on fees but not, of course, on charges for accommodation. None the less, in spite of the honourable history of it, I agree that fees are now out of date, that there are many anomalies in them, and the matter is now best left for arrangement between the doctor and the patient. It is true also, now that they are firmly established and covering a growing number of people, that provident associations are in many respects meeting the needs of people of moderate means which were met by the old arrangements in earlier times.
For these reasons, I do not dispute the Minister's conclusion that the limitations on charges should be abolished, but, now that they are abolished, it is important that restraint be exercised. I am sure that we can confidently look to doctors and specialists to exercise restraint in the matter. They know as well as anyone else that it would be in no one's interest if they priced private patients out by sharp increases in their fees. I am glad to see that the Joint Consultants Committee is keeping in close touch with

the provident associations on the subject, and I am sure that doctors will respond to the appeal which has been made by the Joint Consultants Committee.
This is what the appeal said:
Given that we may expect continuing high charges for accommodation, the pocket of the private patient can be protected only by full consideration on the part of the doctor concerned. It is hoped and expected that the tradition of charging modified fees to those of moderate means and to subscribers to provident schemes will continue to be observed. Failure on the part of individuals to be reasonable in this respect could easily invite public criticism and endanger the whole status of private practice within the hospital service.
I very much agree with that appeal for moderation, and I am sure that we can look confidently to doctors to respond to it, as they have done in the past.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Do I understand that we are debating these Regulations, and is my hon. Friend speaking to them?

Mr. Dean: My hon. Friend may be a little puzzled by the procedure. As I understand it, we are on the Adjournment, but I am directing my remarks entirely to the Regulations, Statutory Instrument No. 1553. Does that help?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it does, but, in the circumstances, I wish now to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we know where we are getting with morning sittings? They are becoming more farcical than ever. I turned up for this Instrument, and the rest of the business, apparently, collapsed.

Mr. Evelyn King: The Minister was not here.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister had to come very quickly in order to be here, and I came in after the debate had started.
This is what I should like to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I raise it with you as a point of order. We are now debating the matter on the Adjournment and we are not really discussing the Regulations. As I understand it, if we put down a Motion against the Regulations, it would be out of order anyway, so that, even though we may discuss the Regulations, we can have no effect on them. This seems to be an extraordinary state of affairs. What can we do about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). This is a rather unusual procedural arrangement. He says that morning sittings are becoming a farce, but I think that the position which we have reached on these Regulations is the result of confusion on the part of the Opposition. The Regulations were down to be prayed against last Wednesday morning, which was the last day on which a Prayer could be tabled against them, it being, I think, the fortieth day since the laying of the Instrument. Because the Opposition chose so to arrange their part of the proceedings on Wednesday morning, the Prayer was not reached. Naturally, one thought that the Prayer against the Regulations had fallen. I understand that there was some talk of tabling a Motion to discuss the Regulations, but it was ruled out of order.
If we are now reaching a situation in which any Prayer which is out of time can be raised on the Adjournment, it seems to me that we might abandon the 40-day limit on Prayers. Perhaps this is a matter to which Mr. Speaker might give his attention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): All I can say from the Chair is that we are not debating the Instrument itself. That would be out of order because the time has expired. But, as we are on the Adjournment and any subject is admissible, it is quite in order to discuss the subject of the Regulations which might have been put down or prayed against in the past.
The question of morning sittings is not for the Chair. It is a matter for the House, and I can rule only that what is being done this morning is in order. I call the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) to continue.

Mr. Dean: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I say in answer to the Minister is that the Regulations were put down to be prayed against last Wednesday. The Prayer was not reached, and the Opposition have exercised their undoubted right to introduce a debate on them. We have been fortunate enough, with the business collapsing this morning, to have plenty of time, far more

time than we should have had on the other occasion, to talk about this important matter.
I was saying that we can look confidently to specialists to exercise moderation in the charges which they make to their private patients. But the appeal which the Joint Consultants Committee made clearly implies that the Minister, too, has his part to play because he is responsible for charges for private bed accommodation.
While I in no way dispute the conclusion to which the Minister has arrived in this matter, I can regard the timing only as exceedingly strange. Why has the right hon. Gentleman chosen to abolish this limitation during the period of severe restraint on prices and incomes? Paragraph 4 of the White Paper, Prices and Incomes Standstill: Period of Severe Restraint, says:
The Government will use their statutory powers for the sole purpose of ensuring that the voluntary support of the majority is not undermined by the actions of a few".
In this instance, the Minister is one of the few, and he is using his statutory powers in order to be one of the few. This is a strange interpretation of the whole theme of voluntary support and statutory powers being used only to prevent the minority getting out of step with the majority. As I say, the Minister is using his statutory powers to be one of the few and is undermining the principles of the severe restraint White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot be surprised if the wage-frozen and now wage-restrained private patient takes a rather jaundiced view of a Minister who acts contrary to his own Government's policy. I hope, therefore, that he will tell us why he has selected this moment to take the action he has.
My next question relates to the charges for private out-patients. When, in answer to a Question on 31st January, 1966, the right hon. Gentleman announced that he proposed to make various changes, of which these Regulations are part, he said that he intended at the same time to revise and bring up to date the schedule of hospital charges for private out-patients. Perhaps he can explain why that change was not included with the other changes proposed in Statutory Instrument 1553. Can the


Minister also say whether the Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to make similar changes for Scotland?
This is just one part of the Minister's proposals concerning private patients. We believe strongly that people who choose to provide for the health needs of their families out of their own resources should not be denied this right, and we look to the Minister to uphold the assurances which he has given in this respect.

11.20 a.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I wonder whether I might be allowed to animadvert to what the Minister said when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said that morning sittings were a farce. I shall not dwell on that, but when one looks at the benches on both sides of the House it is hard not to take that view. However, the Minister went on to say that we had done something which he seemed to think was wrong because we had raised this matter on the Adjournment. I find this impossible to follow.
It is true that it would have been better if the Motion had been discussed last Wednesday. There are many Motions to negative Orders which we should like to discuss. I hope that the Minister will not take the view that it is not within our rights to raise on the Adjournment anything that we cannot discuss in other ways. As it has turned out, it is better that the matter has been raised on the Adjournment because we can take a much wider view and range much further than we would have been able to do had we been confined to the Regulations.
The second part of the Regulations provide that a doctor or dentist can charge anything he likes—there is no limit—for the services which he performs. This is a most remarkable state of affairs at this time. This is what puts the Opposition in difficulty. What the Instrument says, in effect, is that it is impracticable for the Government to seek to impose a prices standstill and to limit fees and that the idea should be abandoned. We on this side of the House entirely agree. I have long thought that any kind of price dictation by Government Departments was impracticable and that it would break down. We agree

with the Minister, and this is what places the Opposition in difficulty.
Out of whose mouth do these strange words come? Does the Prime Minister know what the Minister is arguing? Does the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs know what the Minister is arguing? How far is this doctrine, which we welcome, to be pushed? There has been nothing like it since the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. However, in the week when we are being urged on every side that to raise any price is a crime against the State, the Minister says, "Abolish all price levels; charge what you like". This is one of the most extraordinary debates which I have heard for a very long time.
If one goes further, this month is the month in which, for example, the fees of solicitors are to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. It is the month in which we have heard criticism of estate agents' fees. It is the month in which Minister after Minister has said that the price freeze must apply, not only to goods sold in the shops, but to professionals and to anyone who charges a fee on price. Yet along comes the Minister and shoots the whole thing down.
This is a repetition of the blunder made last week. I ventured to put down a Motion of censure on the Government because they raised the salary of one of their Ministers by 50 per cent. for doing the same work. The difficulty is that the Minister concerned is one of their best Ministers. This is nothing personal against her. Will the Government ever understand that they cannot lay down a doctrine, which I believe to be false, that incomes and fees are not to increase, and then, first, make an exception in the case of one of their own Ministers and the following week make a huge exception in the case of a whole profession? There can be no logic or sense in what the Minister seeks to do.
I take the view, and many of us on this side of the House take the view, that Government economic policy is defined as unworkable. Whatever view one takes, it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that that policy will work and then breach it week by week. This is what is happening in selected cases.
Narrowing the question down, it comes back to doctors as such. I would doubt, even in the narrower medical context,


whether this is the most useful thing that can be done. This concession, which I say again I welcome, will help mainly senior doctors and senior dentists. The whole weakness, which I thought was generally admitted, was not that senior doctors and dentists were underpaid, but that junior doctors and junior hospital consultants were underpaid.
Whether one looks at the matter from the narrower point of view or from the point of view of national policy, I find this a most extraordinary doctrine to present to the House. I hope that the Minister understands that if the Order becomes law and comes into practice, it is going forth from the House that, in the Government's view, there should be no limit placed on the fees which a profession charges. That is our view. I am glad that the Government have adopted it. I hope that they will implement it in more cases than one.

11.26 a.m.

Dr. David Owen: It was not my intention to intervene in the debate, but I think that it would be for the benefit of the House to realise that there is another viewpoint and that there are some people, particularly on these benches, who view the growth of private medicine in this country with considerable concern. The growth of private medicine, as judged by prescriptions, has risen dramatically over the last few years. At a time of intense shortage in the National Health Service this represents a menace to the provision of an equal and fair Health Service to those people who are eligible to benefit from it.
Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to private medicine in principle, but I believe that the place for private medicine is outside the National Health Service hospital, and that if private medicine wishes to continue it should do so in private nursing homes separate and distinct from the National Health Service.
We should analyse the decision to increase fees because of its relevance to the policy of the National Health Service and the way it is going. There is considerable evidence that private beds in the National Health Service are a source of inequality and waste. The Ministry of Health has said that their average occu-

pancy of 51 per cent. is considerably less than the approximate occupancy of 85 per cent. of public beds. We are discussing whether this should be allowed to continue. The decision of the Minister to allow no restriction on fees is right if private medicine is to continue, because in many cases fees have been ridiculously low.
I ask the Minister whether he is worried about the increase in private medicine and whether he believes that it is good for the Health Service to have a private sector within it. This is what I am criticising. I am not criticising private medicine outside. I am criticising the situation in hospitals in which private beds are vacant while there is a large waiting list for public beds. The tendency is for a consultant to say either to the patient or, often, to the general practitioner, "You can come into hospital tomorrow if you pay, but if you do not, I am afraid that you will have to take your place on the waiting list." I do not believe that anybody thinks that doctors engaged on serious life-saving surgery will make that distinction. They will always find a bed for somebody who is seriously ill. I would not wish it to go out that that is my view, but there are delays, because of the shortage of beds, for some who are suffering from quite serious complaints.
It is reasonable to accept that some people want privacy in hospital and I have never been against them having it. Privacy of that kind, if it is not required medically, must be paid for, however, and in this respect there is something to be said for amenity beds. I am pleased to note that the Minister is on record as having said that the knowledge of the facilities and availability of amenity beds will be made more widespread.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one cannot obtain an amenity bed purely on the grounds of privacy.

Dr. Owen: One can, even if there is no medical reason to use an amenity bed. The whole purpose of amenity beds is to provide privacy, but a proviso is always made in that if somebody is seriously ill and if no privacy is available, one does not have the right to such a bed and, in such cases, people must


return to the general ward. It is a fair principle. After all, one is not paying the full price for the amenity bed but the price of the privacy. That is the purpose of the amenity bed and it is obvious that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) is not aware of the facts.
I wish to see an extension of the amenity bed principle, with this facility being provided, where possible, throughout the National Health Service. I accept that there are business people who want privacy while they are in hospital and who, perhaps, want their secretaries with them for part of the time. However, if a hospital is short of beds and there is a sudden demand—perhaps a bad road accident—the people in those amenity beds must return to the general ward.
I am not suggesting that, because there are 6,500 private beds compared with 466,000 general beds, all hospital waiting lists for beds would be drastically reduced if those private beds were brought into general use. It would make only a fractional difference if that were done. I am attacking the whole principle of private medicine in this respect, because it is obviously a bastion of privilege. It is a constant sore and irritation to people to know that, while they must wait for months or even years to get a bed under the National Health Service, those who can afford to pay can get a bed tomorrow. It is particularly irritating when National Health Service patients know that those private patients will be looked after by National Health Service nurses, have their operations probably in exactly the same theatres, be using precisely the same X-ray facilities and that the same anaesthetic machinery will be used on them.
The sole criterion operating in the National Health Service should be that a patient goes into hospital because of his or her illness or disease. The growth of private medicine is a menace to the whole concept of the National Health Service, and every regulation or provision introduced by my right hon. Friend which is likely to bolster up private medicine must he watched carefully.
I am dubious about whether or not we should go on with the principle of part-time consultants. I appreciate that

the system cannot be abolished overnight. However, I should like to see more full-time appointments being made in the National Health Service, with full-time consultants being appointed particularly at the teaching hospitals, with them being given merit awards at the appropriate times, perhaps earlier than at present. There should not be this competition for the time of consultants between private and National Health Service patients.
I look upon private medicine not in the way in which it is viewed by hon. Gentlemen opposite—as a great sign of freedom—but as something which is a privilege, which is challenging the National Health Service and which is taking us back 30 or 40 years. I confess that the growth of private medicine in recent years is, in many respects, due to the National Health Service falling short in providing a full and adequate service. The answer is not to increase private medicine but for the Government to provide the money and facilities to ensure that an adequate service is provided.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument about the National Health Service requiring more money to enable it to provide more amenity beds, better services, and so on. Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that the reintroduction of prescription charges would help the Service to obtain the money it requires to make these improvements?

Dr. Owen: That is hardly relevant to the subject under discussion. We are discussing private medicine. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "no", because I supported the abolition of prescription charges, as did the B.M.A. for about nine years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need to be reminded that the medical profession was strongly in favour of the charges being abolished. We are discussing whether to encourage the growth of private medicine. I accept that certain measures must be introduced and that these matters cannot be dealt with overnight, but if any Labour Minister of Health introduced measures to bolster and encourage private medicine within the National Health Service, he would not have my support and, I suspect, many of my hon. Friends would take the same view. We are dedicated to the National Health Service and we


strongly hold to the view that it must provide an adequate service for everybody.
The Government can encourage amenity beds, by all means. The fees which we are discussing will, I believe, adjust themselves to the circumstances. In this connection, one must also consider the question whether there should be a limitation on the charge for beds. If we are to have private medicine inside National Health Service hospitals—and I hope that this is on the wane—the charges for these beds must be adequate to take account of all the services provided, including nursing facilities and so on. Many people who support the Labour Party, including doctors, view with grave concern the growth of private medicine in the National Health Service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to put some of our worries to rest.

11.38 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I wish, first, to reassure the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King, that I was not suggesting, in my intervention on a point of order, that it was not within the right of the Opposition to raise the subject of pay beds on the Adjournment. If it were not within the right of hon. Gentlemen opposite to do this, Mr. Speaker would not have permitted them to do it. I was merely saying that it seemed somewhat unusual that a lightly disguised Prayer against this Instrument should have been moved without due notice having been given, the 40 days for the tabling of a Prayer having expired. I thought that it was a matter to which Mr. Speaker might give his attention.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: While accepting this procedural point which the right hon. Gentleman is making, would not he agree that he is speaking with a little pique when referring to this Adjournment debate? After all, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if he believes that these Regulations are important—and my hon. Friends and I believe that they are—then this debate, whether on the Adjournment or by any other means, is perfectly justified and the House is perfectly right to be discussing this topic.

Mr. Robinson: I wish to make it perfectly clear that I sincerely welcome this opportunity to explain the purposes of the Regulations. However, I should have thought that the Opposition were sufficiently interested in the matter to have arranged affairs so that they had a proper Prayer within the prescribed time.
It was something of an understatement for the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) to have said that I had come here at "fairly short notice". In fact I left for the House in the middle of a meeting in my Department. I had been told earlier that a Motion would be tabled. When I saw that no Motion was on the Order Paper, I not unnaturally assumed that the Opposition had once again changed their mind.

Mr. Dean: I do not want to argue about this. I assure the Minister that no discourtesy was intended. My information is that he was told earlier in the day that this particular procedure might well be adopted. It has, perhaps, taken place a little earlier than expected because there were so few hon. Members on the Government side to speak in the earlier debates.

Mr. Robinson: I had the information about two minutes before the hon. Member started to speak. However, I repeat that I welcome the opportunity to explain these Regulations.
The hon. Member prefaced what he had to say by one or two general remarks about private practice within the National Health Service. He expressed satisfaction that I had reiterated the pledge that Mr. Aneurin Bevan gave in the earlier days of the Service about private practice and pay beds. Perhaps I should inform him of the terms in which I gave that undertaking, because they were quoted in a letter to all consultants from the Chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee, Sir Thomas Holmes Sellors.
That letter finishes:
It is happy in this connection to record that the present Minister has reiterated the assurances of his predecessors that he has 'no wish to withdraw facilities for admitting private patients to N.H.S. hospitals.'
That is true. At the same time, ever since I became Minister I have always made it clear to the medical profession that I would take no steps actively to


encourage the growth of private practice within the National Health Service, because I broadly take the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) that any substantial expansion of the private sector in medicine could be achieved only at the expense of the public sector. This clearly will be true at any rate so long as there is a serious shortage of doctors in Britain.
The Regulations did two things; they removed the limits prescribed by previous Regulations on the fees that hospital doctors and dentists could charge their private patients treated in N.H.S. hospitals; and they empowered hospital authorities to reduce hospital charges to paying patients in amenity beds or in private beds when those patients were temporarily away from hospital and when their accommodation was reserved for them.
The Regulations are, as I think the hon. Gentleman appreciated, one of a series of measures I decided to take following my review of pay bed policy and after discussions with the Joint Consultants Committee. They were among the measures I referred to in a statement which I made to the House on 31st January, 1966, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). Whilst I am quite ready, and fully intend, to defend these Regulations on their own, I must emphasise that they should be looked at as part of a related series of measures concerning paying patients and private practice in N.H.S. hospitals.
The object of the series of measures I announced is not to withdraw facilities for private practice but to rationalise them and to provide for the more effective use of consultant manpower and hospital beds. They included a review of the existing number of pay beds. This review is now well advanced, and I am considering the recommendations of the hospital boards following their review, and shall be reaching decisions on them very shortly. Some of the other measures will have to await a suitable opportunity for amendment of the National Health Service Act. Meanwhile, these Regulations that we are now discussing have been made, and they fit in with the general pattern.
Incidentally, when I announced my proposals just over a year ago the only step taken at the time by hon. Members opposite was to ask why Socialist Members always seem to think it a crime that anyone able to pay for health services should do so if they wish. At least the Regulations do not inhibit this.
Section 5 of the National Health Service Act gives the Minister power to prescribe by regulation the maximum fees that hospital doctors may charge their patients treated privately in N.H.S. hospitals. Maxima were first prescribed in the 1948 Pay-Bed Regulations and some revision was made by the 1953 Regulations, but until the maxima were removed last month the fees had remained substantially unaltered since 1948. There was therefore a case for revision. There were also a number of features which in my view made this control of fees highly unsatisfactory.
In the first place—and this is partly the answer to the hon. Member for Dorset, South—the limits applied only to treatment in N.H.S. hospitals; they did not apply to treatment in private hospitals or in nursing homes, or to consultations in private consulting rooms which often precede or follow treatment in N.H.S. hospitals. Secondly, they did not necessarily apply even to all private treatment in N.H.S. hospitals. Hospital authorities could agree to their being increased on certain grounds, and could also agree to their being removed altogether if they were satisfied that the patient had agreed to pay more; although they could not be removed in respect of more than 15 per cent. of designated pay beds—such beds, where the limits had been removed, being colloquially known as "no ceiling" beds—at any one time in any one hospital. Moreover, it was not the function of the hospital authority to see that in any particular case the fees being charged were within the prescribed limits.
It has always been the position that the amount of fees to be charged was a matter to be settled between the doctor and his private patient—subject, of course, to the prescribed limits where applicable. In view of the unsatisfactory position as I found it, and of the inadequacy of any effective control, I came to the conclusion that the proper course was to remove the limits altogether and leave


the question of fees to be settled entirely between patient and doctor, as it is in private practice outside N.H.S. hospitals. The profession welcomed this decision, and I should have thought that it would have been supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Dean: I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but I hope that he understands quite clearly from what I said that I am in no way opposing the general principle which he is now putting forward. The main point I made was on the timing.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, I rather gathered that this decision did not meet with opposition from the benches opposite, but that it was merely a question of the timing, with which I shall deal in a moment.
Before deciding to proceed with Regulations to abolish the statutory limits on fees, I gave very careful consideration, with my colleagues in the Government, to the implications of the Prices and Incomes Policy, under which professional fees are expected to continue under restraint.
In the first place, as I have said, the prescription of maximum fees was limited in its application; it did not cover private practice outside the National Health Service, and the limits were not necessarily applied even to all private treatment in N.H.S. hospitals. Moreover, the removal of the limits was one of the measures I had discussed with the profession as part of a series of related measures concerning private practice which I had announced in January, 1966. One of these measures has already been implemented; hospital boards have been reminded that, where necessary, they can advertise full-time consultant appointments without offering the alternative of a maximum part-time appointment. Another, the review of the number of pay beds, is well advanced.
In view of these two factors, I saw no cause to hold up beyond 1st January the implementation of the decision to remove the statutory limits on fees. It could have been done during the standstill—we have the right to do it—but I thought it desirable to leave it until 1st January, and I decided to proceed accordingly.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Robinson: No. I have already given way twice to the hon. Member.
Even before the issue in July of Command Paper 3073, Prices and Incomes Standstill, I had sought and had received assurances that the profession appreciated the importance of ensuring that the removal of the statutory limits would not lead to the charging of excessive fees. Since then I have received an assurance that the profession recognises the need for special restraint in this matter and will exercise it. I understand that the Chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee is writing to all consultants on this point. In their own interest they should exercise restraint lest the numbers willing to pay for private treatment diminish. In all the circumstances removal of these prescribed limits can hardly be regarded as a breach of the prices and incomes policy.
The new Regulation 8A inserted by Regulation 2(1) empowers hospital authorities to reduce hospital charges to paying patients when they are temporarily away from hospital and accommodation is reserved for them. This mainly affects long-stay patients in amenity and pay beds in psychiatric and some other hospitals who may go away for weekends and holidays. When they do so there is some saving in hospital costs, but I was advised that under the previous Regulations there was no power to make reductions. The new Regulation remedies this. Reductions will not be made for absences of less than 24 hours and the first and last days of absence count as one day as they do under the 1953 Regulations for the purpose of calculating the charges. Subject to that, a reduction of 12½ per cent. is to be made for each day's absence. This is based on savings that can be expected in respect of such things as food, drugs, laundry and so on when a patient is not occupying the accommodation. Salaries and wages and other standing charges continue during his absence and these account for the balance of 87½ per cent.
In the case of patients in the Section 4 amenity beds, there is a straight 12½ per cent. reduction on the prescribed charge. Because of the somewhat complicated way of determining charges for


Section 5 accommodation, according to whether medical treatment is given privately and paid for separately, the reduction for Section 5 beds is on the standard daily charge as defined in the earlier Regulations.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North asked about those amenity bed patients who pay less than the current standard rate for amenity beds, in other words, those who were admitted before 1st March, 1961. Perhaps I may explain how this arises. In 1948 amenity bed charges were fixed at 6s. a day or 2 guineas a week for single rooms and 3s. a day or 1 guinea a week for accommodation in small wards. In 1952 the single rate was increased to 4 guineas and in 1961 to 8 guineas a week. Each time they were increased, there was a saving for existing patients so that some are still paying the pre-1961 charges. In the case of Section 5 patients, of course, the Regulations provide for charges to be revised annually. Therefore, clearly, a number of amenity bed patients are paying only half the rate already.
Another point which the hon. Member raised was in connection with outpatients. It is true that in my statement in January, 1966, I said that I would introduce Regulations to revise and bring up to date the schedule of hospital charges for private out-patients prescribed by the 1953 Regulations. My intention was to bring up to date the charges for procedures and treatments included in the schedule, and also to make it more comprehensive by including other treatment and procedures not at present included and to prescribe charges for them. I decided, in view of the incomes policy, that it would not be appropriate at this time. The present Regulations, therefore, do not include a revised schedule.
Hon. Members have asked why we found it possible to postpone an increase in out-patient charges if we could not postpone the increase in in-patient charges, since both are governed by the provisions of Section 5 of the National Health Act, 1946. The answer is twofold. In the first place, the 1953 Regulations deal with the two sets of charges differently. They prescribe the method by which hospital authorities determine pay bed charges, including their annual revision on the basis of the costs of the previous financial year;

whereas they specify definite out-patient charges for particular procedures and these cannot be altered except by Regulations.
Secondly, while in-patient costs are precisely ascertainable and the charges are capable of annual revision, charges to out-patients cannot be calculated with such precision and, therefore, are not susceptible to frequent revision. It is not, therefore, inconsistent with the requirement of the National Health Service Act to postpone a revision of the out-patient charges in order to comply with the Government's policy of prices and incomes, and I propose to deal with them at a future date.

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must deprecate the Minister seeking to catch your eye when he did although I was on my feet seeking to do so also, as I had given him notice of a specific point which I sought to raise. I appreciate that the Minister wrote a hastily scribbled note from his place on the Front Bench saying that he considered the matter which I sought to raise to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, but I submit that that is not so. The health of the nation is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. The fact that health in factories may be the responsibility of the Minister of Labour is another matter. The point which I would have raised had I been able to catch your eye was that blue asbestos is undoubtedly a cancer-forming agent. I think the Minister of Labour is doing research in factories, but some of my constituents far removed from a factory have been writing to me on this point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I understand the hon. Member's difficulty. He was good enough to give me notice that he wanted to raise this matter. At that time we were under the impression that it was the responsibility of the Minister of Health. I now understand that that Minister does not accept the responsibility. The practice of the Chair is always to pay regard to the responsibility which a Minister himself accepts for his own Department, so in this case the practice of the Chair would be to proceed to the next debate and to protect the interests of the hon. Member for


Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who has the Adjournment debate today.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Before you proceed to the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. My right hon. Friend has raised a number of contentious points and, in all fairness, this discussion should be allowed to go on. It is only right that he should give some clarification on two points. I am not accusing him of deliberately misleading the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member must accept that the only person who can decide who should catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair is the occupant of the Chair. We cannot have a debate on anything that the right hon. Member has said, however contentious it may be, and I must protect the interests of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who has the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: We are in an extraordinary situation because, when the Minister rose, two of us rose from our places to participate in the debate on pay beds. In the normal course of events, we would have had one and a half hours' debate, but we have not had anything like that amount of time. The Minister rose precipitately, and cut us out of the debate. This he did, probably not knowing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order for the Chair. If I might give some guidance to the House, I have responsibility to protect the position of the hon. Member for Norwood. Once that Adjournment debate is over, it is open to other hon. Members to endeavour to catch my eye, and I believe that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has already given notice of his intention to try to raise another subject. The sooner we can get on to the Adjournment debate, the sooner that can be done.

Mr. Dean: May I put another point to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? As you will be aware, only the fact that we have had this debate has saved the bacon of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). But for that he would

have lost his chance entirely. I wonder if you can consider the possibility of calling some of my hon. Friends who have sat here throughout this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the difficulties of the hon. Member. I accept that what he says about the continuation of the debate is perfectly correct, but I think that in all the circumstances I must adhere to my decision and call the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we be assured, therefore, that the Minister of Health will stay to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), who wishes to speak later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), if he catches my eye, wishes to raise a matter which is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and I believe that he has given notice. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. John Wells: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, I can take only one hon. Member at a time. Mr. Atkinson.

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Atkinson: Relative—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not raise the same point of order again.

Mr. Atkinson: All I am doing is asking for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether the Minister will be here for the debate which you suggest will take place after the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not pronounced on whether a debate will take place. I have indicated only that it is open for the hon. Member to catch my eye, if the time allows. Mr. Speaker and successive Speakers have said that, if hon. Members wish to raise issues


on the Adjournment, they should give notice to the Minister. It that has been done, all the requirements of the Chair will have been fulfilled.

Mr. John Wells: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do hope that, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, and if a Minister from the Ministry of Labour is in his place to answer me, he will be in a position to say why the Minister of Health will not accept responsibility—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but this is a matter he must raise if he catches my eye at the appropriate time. Mr. Fraser.

LAMBETH (UNDERGROUND TRANSPORT AND PASSENGER FACILITIES)

12.2 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I should like to take this opportunity to raise the question of the provision of underground train facilities in the Borough of Lambeth and other passenger facilities in that area. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I share the distinction of being, or having been, Governors of Tulse Hill Comprehensive School, which is in my constituency. Therefore, my hon. Friend will be able to listen to me, I hope with sympathy, and I know with experience, as I speak of the travelling facilities which exist throughout Lambeth going out to Norwood and to Crystal Palace.
What we need in Lambeth is not merely a comprehensive system of education, but also a much more comprehensive public transport system. Historically the underground system of London was developed and provided north of the River Thames. One needs only to look at a railway map to see that there is a proliferation of underground transport facilities north of the River Thames and very little to the south. The only lines serving the south are an extension of the District Line to New Cross, the Bakerloo Line, terminating unfortunately at the Elephant and Castle, and the Northern Line going out to Morden. It is a very great pity for the transport facilities of South London in general that the

Bakerloo Line was not extended down to Camberwell Green through Peckham and out perhaps to Lewisham. If this had been done some years ago, the congestion in bus transport and other public transport in the south of London could have been avoided.
However, I want to speak, not of the Bakerloo Line, but of the Victoria Line. Once again, the construction of the Victoria Line from Victoria northwards illustrates the advantage that North London seems to have over the area south of the river. However, I hope that on this occasion the opportunity will be taken to roll the Victoria Line forward and to strike south to relieve the congestion and improve the poor facilities which exist in my borough and in other areas south of the river.
There has been no dispute as to the usefulness of bringing the Victoria Line to Brixton and perhaps beyond. A cost-benefit analysis has been carried out which has shown it to be a worthy project. Parliamentary powers exist for constructing the line as far as Brixton. Therefore, I want to deal, not with the need for the line, which I think is generally accepted, but with the reasons why an urgent decision should be taken now.
First, public transport facilities toward the Brixton area at least are congested and subject to delay and inconvenience. This is evidenced by paragraphs 46 and 47 of a Report of the Central Advisory Council on Transport, which speak of the highly increased difficulty in bus transport facilities because of congestion on the roads, because of delay, and because of the shortage of staff.
The second urgent reason for wanting a decision is that the Covent Garden Market is due to be moved from its present position to Nine Elms near Vauxhall. Already, there has been a great deal of congestion between Norwood, Brixton and Victoria, because the traffic must pass over Vauxhall Bridge. Therefore, if Covent Garden Market is situated at Nine Elms the congestion will be made even greater, and it would be logical to bring the Victoria Line to Brixton, and even beyond, and to provide a station at Vauxhall. After all, Covent Garden has a station of its own at the moment. There is no reason why the new Nine


Elms Market should not have its own station.
Thirdly, Brixton and the areas around it badly need increased transport facilities. It is the sixth largest suburban centre in London. It is the third largest shopping centre south of the river. There are at peak hours 14,000 passenger car units on the roads per hour. At peak times in Brixton Road there are 5,000 pedestrians crossing the road per hour. A bus passes every 15 seconds. I mention these figures to illustrate the conflict between pedestrian, motor car and bus, and to illustrate the delay which is consequent upon that congestion and upon that conflict arising at the centre.
The fourth reason is that Brixton centre cries out for redevelopment. If there is to be a comprehensive development area order for that place, then I think it would be right to be able to phase underground transport facilities into that redevelopment.
The fifth reason why a decision is urgently wanted now is that the organisation exists with the construction of the Victoria Line, and it would be a great pity to disband the team of engineers, tunnellers, machinery and equipment. All these facilities exist at the moment. It would be wasteful and inefficient to allow the present Victoria Line to be completed and then to make a start at some future date on the extension to Brixton because it would be necessary to bring the machinery, the men and the labour teams together again. I understand that this would be a somewhat difficult process. It would be very wasteful if the people now assembled on the construction of the Victoria Line were to be disbanded. What is needed from the Minister is no more than what is needed from a blushing young girl—to say "Yes" and name the day. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to do that today.
Apart from extending the Victoria Line to Brixton I hope that the Minister will be able to give very earnest consideration to extending it beyond Brixton to Crystal Palace through West Norwood. The reason why I ask for this is that Crystal Palace is to be redeveloped as an international industrial exhibition centre. As well as already being a large sporting centre, with the recreation facili-

ties which have been provided there by the Greater London Council, Crystal Palace is to become Britain's shop window to the world.
It would be very short-sighted if that shop window for the world was to be provided at Crystal Palace without adequate transport facilities. I therefore hope that Crystal Palace will be provided with a life-line to Central London. The architect of the Crystal Palace over 100 years ago designed a covered way to lead from Crystal Palace to the centre of London. I hope that this Government will be the architect of a new covered way, the extension of the Victoria Line as far as Crystal Palace.
Finally, apart from underground facilities in Lambeth, I hope that it will be possible to provide passenger interchange facilities at places like Waterloo, Brixton and Crystal Palace. It is no good having public transport facilities if ease of change cannot be arranged. Sometimes catching a bus in Brixton, Crystal Palace or Waterloo is about as messy and difficult as trying to catch a rabbit.
At Brixton there is the ideal opportunity to provide a passenger interchange facility—a sort of department store of public transport, where under the same roof a person would be able to get a train, or a motorway express bus, or a London Transport bus, or to get an underground train. It should be possible, with initiative and with imagination and guidance from the Ministry, to design a passenger interchange terminal—for instance, with the same booking hall for British Railways and for the underground, and where it would be highly convenient to change from one system of transport to another.
If public transport is to succeed, it must be convenient and it must even be glamorous. One certainly must be able to site the same facilities on the same spot. I hope that the Minister will exercise initiative in providing passenger interchange facilities at Brixton, where the new centre is being built—it would be possible to design it now—and, for instance, at Waterloo as well, where we could have a transport centre which was dedicated to the convenience of the travelling public. At Waterloo at present, one comes out of the station, and it is necessary to go out into the


rain or the cold, perhaps, and start searching for a bus at the appropriate bus stop. At a place like that it should be possible to have the buses running into the station under cover so that the attractions of public transport are made as great as the attractions of the private car.
I hope that these facilities will be provided in Lambeth, and, if we could have passenger interchange facilities at Waterloo and Brixton as well, we should provide a blueprint for better interchange facilities for the travelling public throughout the rest of Britain.

12.10 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has done a public service in bringing to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and the House the traffic needs of one of the most congested areas of London. It is unfortunate—it may have been a historical accident—that the Northern Line, to all intents and purposes, bypasses Brixton. South of the river, the Northern Line goes through the Oval down to Stockwell and then on to Clapham, by and large following the main Clapham Road. The Brixton Road, on the other hand, which also goes south, has no rail facilities comparable with the rail facilities enjoyed by people living along the line of the Clapham Road, which forms one of the boundaries of my constituency.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the difficulties encountered by travellers wanting to come to Brixton from the north side of the river. Many of them very wisely travel by underground, but if they want to get to Brixton or points immediately south they have to disembark at the Oval station. I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to see what happens at the Oval station during the rush hour in the evening. People come out of the Oval station in droves. In order to travel on to Brixton, they have to cross two main roads, the Clapham Road and the Brixton Road. Having negotiated that hazard as best they can, they find themselves at the bus station at the northern end of the Brixton Road, and this happens to be the point at which London Transport changes its bus crews.
It not infrequently happens, when large numbers of people emerge from the Oval station in the hope of catching a bus to Brixton, Streatham or Croydon, as the case may be, that, by some misfortune, the crew which is supposed to take the arriving bus over is not there on time. Passengers may sit in the bus for minutes, or sometimes longer, before the bus crew which is supposed to be there turns up. It is unfortunate that this place, so close to the Oval station where so many people come out, is the nearest bus stop for the purpose of going on to Brixton and points south and is also the point at which bus crews change.
It is true that there are rail facilities on the Southern Region from Brixton to Victoria and vice versa, but the station in Brixton from which one can travel by overhead line to Victoria, though very centrally situated right in the heart of the Brixton market area, is a very old and antiquated structure. One has to go up flights of stairs, which are not easy for old people or youngsters to negotiate. This is one point where interchange facilities could well be provided. If the new underground station at Brixton on the Victoria-Brixton extension were so contrived as to be built underneath the present overhead station on the Brixton-Victoria line, there could be a simple and easy interchange of passengers wanting to go further south to places not conveniently served by bus routes.
My hon. Friend has referred to the enormous congestion in the Brixton Road particularly on Saturdays. In order to allow the traffic to get through, pedestrian guard rails have been erected along a considerable stretch of the Brixton Road. Otherwise, the pedestrians would overflow on to the road and traffic would not get through at all. I am sure that one of the busiest pedestrian crossings in London is the pedestrian crossing in the Brixton Road near the heart of Brixton running between Marks and Spencer's on one side of the road and Montague Burton's and the Brixton Market on the other. It is pretty clear to anyone who stands there on a Saturday that the estimate of 5,000 pedestrians crossing the road per hour must be an underestimate.
Although the red lights at that pedestrian crossing only hold good for a short time, the crowd of people crossing


puts one in mind of the enormous numbers coming out of Wembley Stadium after a Cup Final match. A fantastic state of affairs is created. With this vast mass of pedestrians trying to cross the road, the result is that, even if the vehicular traffic is held up for only a few moments, a long trail of buses, cars, lorries and goodness knows what at once develops, stretching for a considerable distance both north and south of the pedestrian crossing.
It so happens that this pedestrian crossing, one of the busiest in London, as I say, is situated within a short distance, perhaps 200 yards or so, from two very congested traffic intersection points on either side. The one to the north is just outside Brixton Police Station where Stockwell Road, Brixton Road, Gresham Road and Canterbury Crescent all converge. There is a very great deal of right-turning, and the consequence of all the congestion on a Friday between five and six in the evening is that the traffic signal system is incapable of coping with the load. Traffic has to be manually controlled by two, three or even four policemen standing at the four intersection points.
South of the pedestrian crossing, 100 or 200 yards away, there is another very congested intersection at the corner of Brixton Hill, Acre Lane, Brixton Road, Coldharbour Lane and the little side street in front of the Tate Library. This is another equally congested area.
All this reinforces the argument that the only way to deal with the congestion in Brixton is to carry people underground and enable them to go through the area without having to congest the road with private cars, buses, pedestrian traffic and all the rest.
My hon. Friend made an important point when he stressed that the impending completion of the Victoria Line to the north-east of London will release a pool of highly-skilled labour and valuable machinery. It would be a thousand pities if all that concentration of men and machinery were allowed to disperse before it could be put on the job of constructing the Victoria-Brixton extension. If ever there were a form of hard labour which it is not always easy to obtain, it is the men who excavate in the underground tunnels. Whatever

money they earn—and they earn good money of £40 and £50 a week-they are still underpaid, in my opinion, working in terribly hot conditions in most laborious circumstances. It is not a job I would recommend anyone to undertake, unless he was fighting fit and able to cope with the most adverse physical circumstances. I would like to see that same bunch of splendid fellows doing a bit of digging between Victoria and Brixton.
My hon. Friend also referred to the need for rapid and simple communications between the centre of London and the Crystal Palace. I hope that that more long-term plan will not frighten my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary from making a start with Brixton. But it would be a pity if the Crystal Palace development which is under consideration, and which has now started, should be hamstrung at the start by lack of easy approach from London.
One of the main reasons why Earls Court and Olympia are attractive as exhibition centres is the ease with which it is possible to arrive at them by underground. The police are able, very wisely, to close many of the streets in those areas when the Motor Show or some other big show is being held, without imposing hardship on motorists. Motorists can easily leave their cars well out of the areas and get to the exhibitions by underground, and therefore the police are amply justified in closing to all motor traffic 10, 15 or 20 streets, as the case may be, while the exhibitions which attract a large concourse take place.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will recall that not very long ago I put down one or two Questions to him about the date of a decision on the extension. I pointed out to him that I had been advocating the extension for about 20 years, and he consoled me with the thought that I would not have to wait another 20 years, that the file was getting near to the top of the pile on the desk of my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. Perhaps the file is now right at the top, because the last time I raised the matter in the House my hon Friend said it would be only a few weeks before a decision was announced.
Perhaps it is too much to hope that he will be able to make a definitive announcement today. But if he can, he will


transform a somewhat local, parochial debate into an epoch-making national pronouncement. I therefore hope that if he cannot make a specific announcement today of the date on which the new extension will be commenced, he will at least be able to give the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood, myself and the people of Brixton encouraging news of the date in the near future when the announcement for which we have waited so many years will be made.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I wish to raise two brief points, the first of which concerns the new Covent Garden site, which I understand will be situated at Nine Elms. I also understand that there will not be waterside facilities for lighterage or for passenger transport on the water. That point has a bearing on the transport problems of the Brixton area, because if transport can go on the river and not on the roads, where it would affect the buses and pressure on the roads, so much the better. Could my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary consider the lack of facilities for water exit from the new Covent Garden site, as it is clear that there will be increased pressure on the roads if there are no waterside facilities?
Secondly, educational facilities in the Brixton area are expanding greatly. The present Brixton School of Building will be expanded into a regional college, and it is going into a new building. There are already great problems for students getting to the present site at Brixton, and a difficult situation is developing, as I understand that it is impossible to start classes on time at the school because of the bad transport facilities from central London into Brixton, which have been emphasised by both my hon. Friends.
My most serious question concerns the lack of waterside facilities for lighterage and transport at Nine Elms, and I hope that my hon. Friend can look into that matter as I believe it to be most important in relation to the problems expressed by my two hon. Friends.

12.27 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) was good enough to mention that I am acquainted

with the transport facilities and traffic problems in the Borough of Lambeth. I was very pleased to serve for a short period up to October, 1964, on the governing board of the excellent and outstanding comprehensive school at Tulse Hill. Generally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) knows, I travelled to and from Tulse Hill by public transport and therefore I can claim, at any rate up to that time, a close acquaintanceship with the problems. I therefore well understand the reasons that impelled my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood to raise this subject this morning.
I hope to be able to show something of what is being done now to improve public transport in the Borough of Lambeth, which is an illustration of our approach to London as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton implied that we were dealing with parochial problems, but they are also illustrative of the immense problem we have all over London of making a special effort to improve public transport and reduce congestion. No doubt, in the course of this week we shall hear a good deal more on the general subject of London's problems as a whole.
I want to make two points immediately. First, like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood, I propose to deal with British Rail services as well as with London Transport underground services. There is nothing magical about underground services as such although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton said, they offer the opportunity of getting some people away from the congestion on the surface. What people want are good rail services, whether they are underground or on the surface.
Secondly, the provision of transport services is a matter for the operators. Several of the points raised by my hon. Friends are matters of managerial responsibility for those responsible for operations, whether in the headquarters of the British Railways Board or London Transport. I shall make a special point of drawing the attention of those concerned to the particular and detailed matters which my hon. Friends raised.
My right hon. Friend has a close interest both because of the general responsibility for the nation's transport and the important function she has to exercise


over such matters as major investment. But, in the last resort, much of the initiative must come in flexible arrangements made by London Transport and British Railways.
On behalf of the two nationalised boards concerned, I claim at once that Lambeth is already unusually well endowed with rail facilities. It has London Transport's Northern and Bakerloo lines. It has the great terminus and interchange point of Waterloo. It has the special underground link to the City from Waterloo, and it has a large number of other British Rail stations enjoying excellent services, giving passengers a choice of terminal station in Central London. I mention Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham Common and West Norwood purely as examples. Even so, the responsible authorities plan to improve still further public transport in this area: and I now turn from the present situation to the future.
First, the underground. My hon. Friend pressed for an early and favourable decision on London Transport's proposal to extend the Victoria Line to Brixton. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton claims to have been pressing for this for a couple of decades. I do not think that I shall altogether surprise him by saying that I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the decision today. But perhaps I can elevate my hon. Friends' hearts a little by assuring them that an announcement on this subject will be made by my right hon. Friend very soon indeed.
I admit at once that we have been mulling over this proposal of London Transport's for a considerable time. I make no apology for that. It raised many and difficult problems. At the present time, all proposals for major investments like this must, of course, be scrutinised with unusual care and this is a question of £16 million. But I can tell my hon. Friends that, in reaching her decision, my right hon. Friend will have regard not only to the financial results of the project in the accounts of London Transport, but also—which is most important—to the wider question of social benefits such as time saving, reductions in road casualties, the need to attack the problem of congestion, etc. All these factors would flow from the building of this new line.
Of course, my right hon. Friend will have very much in mind the question of the relationship between the provision of transport facilities and new developments. Both my hon. Friends have raised questions on which I am not in a position to give a detailed answer at the moment. But I can tell them that all these matters are being studied very closely because we know that one of the greatest mistakes made in the past lay in the failure to plan at one and the same time the developments which occurred and the travel facilities that ought to go with them. These are mistakes that we do not intend to repeat.
Other possible extensions of the underground system could bring benefits to the Lambeth area. These lie a bit further ahead. One possibility mentioned is the extension of the Bakerloo Line southwards from the Elephant, but I cannot say at present that this has a high priority with London Transport. There may, of course, be developments which will alter that but, in any case, a major extension here could not be contemplated in present circumstances because it would lead to intolerable overloading of the Central London section of the Bakerloo Line.
I now turn to the services provided by British Rail. My hon. Friends will remember the major survey of passenger requirements which Southern Region carried out in 1964. Last year, my right hon. Friend approved the investment by the Region of almost £500,000 in physical works so as to enable the service to be improved and reshaped in the light of that survey. In July this year, a new timetable made possible by these improvements in the system will be introduced. It will provide for an increase of almost 20 per cent. in the number of seats on trains arriving at the Region's London termini in the morning peak hour. This very substantial improvement will certainly be felt in Lambeth—for example, on the line from Herne Hill to Victoria.
In addition, the Southern Region is currently engaged on detailed planning of further major improvements in its capacity which such developments as the new town at Thamesmead will make necessary. This planning is still at an early stage but it is already clear that really major investments—of the order of £10 million or more—may be called


for, and therefore my hon. Friends will realise that further announcements will shortly be made concerning this. The effect of improvements on this scale would, of course, be felt in Lambeth.
My hon. Friend called for improved facilities in Lambeth for interchange between one form of transport and another. I agree that better interchange facilities are needed and I will try to tell him what is being done. My right hon. Friend set up about a year ago the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London. The Council operates through five working groups. One of these is the Interchanges Group, whose terms of reference are:
to examine and keep under review facilities for interchange between elements of the transport system and to recommend a programme of improvement in relation to present and future transport demands".
On this group are representatives of the major interests with executive responsibilities for transport in London—The Greater London Council, London Transport, British Rail and the Ministry. The Group has immediately turned its attention to the practical question of actually improving on the ground physical interchange arrangements between different forms of transport. For example, one of its working parties is studying the situation at Waterloo, with special reference to the need for more convenient interchange between rail and bus services. I may say at this point that London Transport hope that the next Red Arrow services to be introduced will operate to and from Waterloo.
So my hon. Friends will see that we have a special study going on into interchange problems. The Interchanges Group has also been considering how interchange might be improved at Brixton itself and will quite certainly take

into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton has said.

Mr. Lipton: The interchange at the Oval is one of the most difficult aspects of the problem at Brixton. People have to walk quite a distance from the station to get on buses for Brixton. Could not, as a temporary measure, some buses be diverted so that one could come out of the Oval station and get on a bus for Brixton without having to cross two main roads, which is particularly unpleasant on a wet night?

Mr. Swingler: That is exactly the kind of thing that the Interchanges Group is studying and I assure my hon. Friend that I will draw its attention to this point. I know that it is studying the problems of Brixton and it may well be, as we have found in other places, that a new scheme regarding the siting of particular kinds of facilities can be made and negotiated between those concerned.
Much depends on whether the Victoria line extension goes ahead. If it does, major improvements to interchange facilities will be possible. The G.L.C.'s motorway box is planned to pass through Brixton, and Lambeth Borough Council has plans which could provide excellent facilities for interchange between car and tube, car and rail and bus and rail if the underground were extended. There could also be interchange arrangements at Stockwell and Vauxhall.
I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to make it clear to my hon. Friends not only that the Government and other responsible authorities are determined to improve public transport in this part of London, but also that significant and worthwhile improvements are receiving serious consideration and will be the subject of announcements in the very near future.

ASBESTOS AND LUNG CANCER

12.40 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for coming at under an hour's notice to answer this short debate. The reason I have not given the hon. Gentleman longer notice was that I had hoped that the matter would be answered by the Minister of Health. Although I am well aware that the chief medical officers of the hon. Gentleman's Department are looking into the problem of cancer caused by blue asbestos, this matter was raised with me first by constituents of mine who had no connection whatever with the factory in question. They live near the factory, I admit, but I had had no complaint whatever from those actually working within the factory. This is a matter concerning the general health of the nation and for this reason I had presumed that the Ministry of Health would deal with it.
To put the matter simply and straightforwardly, I should like to read one or two extracts from letters from my constituents which express their fears. Appropriately enough, the first letter which I received on the subject was from a Mr. Ian Gunter, who wrote to me on 23rd January this year on the subject of asbestos dust and lung cancer. He states:
My house is 1¼ miles in a direct line from"—
a certain factory—
and I and my neighbours are increasingly alarmed over the potentially grave risk to the health not only of our families and ourselves but also of all those living in the area as a result of the escape into the atmosphere of asbestos dust, particularly of the variety known as blue asbestos which, to my knowledge, is used in large quantities at the … factory.
You will no doubt be aware of the considerable publicity given in recent months in the Sunday Times by their medical correspondent warning of the risk of incurable and invariably fatal lung tumours being caused through inhalation of asbestos dust.
He then deals with a certain B.B.C. programme and asks me to look into the matter urgently.
I had a further letter from a neighbour of Mr. Gunter who said:
You will be aware of the considerable correspondence in the national Press on this

subject over several months. I can send copies of various articles should you so wish. As Mr. Gunter says"—
that is, Mr. Ian Gunter—
we live directly down the prevailing southwesterly wind from the … factory, and while I have already made extensive inquiries from the Hollingbourne Rural District Council in their capacity as public health authority, and have had correspondence and a personal interview with the medical officer of health, we have in the nature of things not progressed very far or very fast.
The M.O.H. is writing to the … company about the use of blue asbestos, requesting them to cease their use of this material, but I am very much afraid that this will not have the desired effect.
I myself have four young children residing at home, and they are. I am sure, entitled to be able to be free from this now known hazard. The M.O.H. feels the risk in my own locality to be slight, but admits that he does not know for sure, and goes on to say that 'the chief danger is from broken bags of this material', which means that from time to time we must be at risk: in any case, friends and
other people
live very much closer to the factory and are almost certainly at risk. There is reason to believe that the filtration plant of the factory is in good order, but there is the danger of handling the material on arrival, and the loading and disposal of the waste, which I believe is causing the M.O.H. special concern, and I am extremely worried by the whole situation.
He goes on to say:
I understand that the importation of this particular sort of asbestos only represents 5 per cent. of the national importation of asbestos, and I can see no justifiable reason why its importation and use should not be totally suspended pending full inquiries and research.
Those two letters from which I have read substantial extracts set out the fears of my constituents, not only for themselves and their families, but for neighbours who live downwind from the factory.
I repeat that I have had no complaint from anybody working inside the factory. None of the workpeople has expressed anxiety to me. At the same time, however, I hope that the Minister will explain to the House what his Department is doing to safeguard people in factories. As the Minister of Health has clearly shirked his responsibility in this matter concerning national health, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to allay the fears of people outside.
If the medical officer of health is right in thinking that the risk is slight, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give


categorical support to what the medical officer of health says so that people need have no more fear. If, on the other hand, the slight doubt expressed by the medical officer of health has any justification, I hope that the Minister will take the strongest steps to forbid immediately and completely the use of this material until research has been concluded.

12.46 p.m.

Dr. John Dunwoody: I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) on raising this matter. There is, I think it is true to say, increasing disquiet among the medical profession at some strange and rather inexplicable facts relating to exposure to asbestos, both from the industrial viewpoint and from the point of view of the health of the community as a whole. Asbestos certainly seems to produce in some cases certain types of tumours. Perhaps we are right not to regard them as malignant tumours, but they cause progressive and, possibly, killing lung diseases.
I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to do all he can, not only in his own Department, but in conjunction with his colleagues at the Ministry of Health, who, I feel sure, appreciate the problem, to initiate research so that we will not be as much in the dark as we are at present.

12.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) was good enough to thank me for coming at what he described as an hour's notice to answer this debate. The hon. Member's thanks to me are quite unnecessary, but congratulations to him for his diligence in this matter are entirely appropriate. The hon. Member asked a Question last Monday and he has another down for today. In between, he has taken advantage of the opportunity given to him this morning to raise the matter again. He is to be congratulated on his enthusiasm for getting it straightened out.
I am sorry that I must disappoint the hon. Member in terms of answering his question about the general health aspects of asbestos. He will understand that the responsibilities of my Department are

confined to the industrial hazards and the industrial safety aspect. Therefore, I am able neither to confirm nor deny the advice given to the hon. Member's constituents by the local medical officer of health and I must simply confine what I say to the other aspects which fall directly within the purview of the Ministry of Labour.
By raising the matter this morning, the hon. Member has been successful in anticipating by 2 hours 40 minutes an Answer, which will be given him this afternoon by my colleague the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). In anticipation of that Answer, perhaps I may fill in a little of the background as it is seen in the Ministry of Labour.
The hon. Member will already know that an announcement has been made that a panel of experts, under the chairmanship of Her Majesty's Senior Medical Inspector of Factories, has been appointed to review the medical aspects of this case. It is possible to say with prejudicing any of its conclusions that three things are already known. The first is that there is an increase in asbestosis throughout the industry. Secondly, there is an increase in lung cancer among the people who initially suffer from that disease. Thirdly, there is a connection between exposure to asbestos and various rare but almost invariably fatal forms of cancer. One can say that without prejudicing the results of the inquiry, because it is those three facts which make the inquiry necessary and have resulted in its being brought about.
It is also possible to put the use of asbestos into industrial perspective, for example, the simple fact that it is being used more often and in greater quantities today than at any time in our industrial history and that over 20,000 people are engaged in working on it or with it. That does not mean that they are working on blue asbestos, which is the particularly virulent sort. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that only about 5 per cent. of the asbestos used in this country is of that type. Nevertheless, there are 20,000 people exposed to the risk which comes from working with asbestos in general.
One of the hon. Gentleman's constituents wrote to him or to the medical officer asking why some Ministry—perhaps my


own would not be the most appropriate —did not ban the use of this asbestos until the final medical evidence was more clear than it is today.
The simple answer is that, in an economy which is expanding and more and more dependent upon special products and special operations, asbestos is increasingly important and in many ways cannot be replaced by other materials. Certainly the factory inspectors urge industry to use alternatives whenever possible. But it is far from always being a practical proposition. This is particularly true about blue asbestos, which is used in many instances to produce commodities which could not be produced in the same way, at the same quality and at the same speed were other materials used. It is particularly important in producing goods and materials where strength is a vital factor.
Blue asbestos has a greater tensile quality than any posible alternatives. It would not be possible for many of the important industries which are involved in the production of materials into which this commodity goes to be told overnight that some alternative had to be found. We have no reason to believe that a viable alternative exists. Therefore, although only about 5 per cent. of the asbestos industry uses this specific commodity, it would not be possible to outlaw its use even during the short time before new asbestos regulations are brought into force.
As the House will be told in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question later today, new asbestos regulations are to be considered. In the light of that, I should make it clear why the new regulations are being considered and why they are so necessary.
They are in part necessary because of the expansion in the use of asbestos, not only in quantitative terms but in terms of new processes which have been discovered and are being applied since the Asbestos Regulations were prepared 30 years ago before many of these new processes were invented. Some are like those which go on in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where there is a substantial factory producing floor-covering with an asbestos base. Brake linings, heating and ventilating components in general are produced under conditions for which the pre-

sent Asbestos Regulations are not sufficiently comprehensive. Therefore, the Minister is announcing today that new regulations are being considered which will have a wider application, will cover increasing numbers of asbestos products and will have special reference to those industrial processes which produce large quantities of asbestos dust.
In conclusion, I can say that the Ministry is aware of the problems which working with asbestos in general and this form in particular pose to British industry. We are anxious that the regulations should be re-formed in such a way as to provide security and safety for those members of the industry who work on this form of asbestos and on asbestos in general.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with us while those regulations are being revised in the knowledge that, in some of the things which he has raised his persistence has been a contribution to making sure that the regulations are revised. It is the intention of the Ministry of Labour to bring about the revision as quickly as possible.

Mr. John Wells: With the leave of the House, may I ask the hon. Gentleman three questions? First, when may we expect the regulations to come into force? Can we have an approximate date? Second, will the panel of medical experts be prepared to take evidence and hear views from my constituents living in the neighbourhood? Can the hon. Gentleman make arrangements for them to express their views to the panel? Third, as he is unwilling, quite rightly, to accept the nationwide health responsibility for people outside factories, can he advise me how I can make the Minister of Health face up to his responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps the way to make the Minister of Health face up to his responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, is to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That is a technique which the hon. Gentleman does not seem slow to apply—

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for interrupting him, but that is exactly what I sought to do this morning with the Minister of Health, who has run off, shirking his duty—


admittedly in a most courteous way. He has told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Clerk at the Table, that he has no responsibility for this matter. But he has responsibility for the health of the nation. May I seek your guidance as to how an hon. Member can pin the Minister down?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. The responsibility which the Chair accepts is the responsibility which the Minister himself believes that he accepts. The hon. Gentleman must seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and the Chair will rule whether the matter is out of order at the time.

Mr. Hattersley: I have tried not to take issue with the hon. Gentleman on three occasions when he has chosen to say something which I regard as inaccurate about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in case he or other hon. Members might think that my criticisms were the result more of the fact that I first heard of the hon. Gentleman's intention to raise this matter 50 minutes ago, than

of my resentment and disagreement with his criticisms of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel that such criticisms are more appropriately aired when my right hon. Friend is here.
He asked when the new regulations would be brought into operation. I am sure that he understands that as it is not yet possible to say when the new regulations will be formulated it is equally impossible to say when they will be put into operation.
In answer to his second point, anyone who has appropriate and relevant evidence to give to the inquiry will be given that opportunity, and I will see that instructions are issued to cater for any of the hon. Gentlemen's constituents who are in that category and may want to give evidence to the inquiry which has been set up.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Industrial Accidents (Research)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Labour what research is being undertaken into the prevention of industrial accidents.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): A good deal of research into industrial safety is being carried out by Government and industrial research bodies. An account of the work being done appeared in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for December, 1966. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a register of research drawn up by the Ministry.

Mr. Watkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful answer, but may I ask whether he is aware that much of the research being undertaken by voluntary bodies is unco-ordinated, and its effectiveness thereby diminished? Will he consider setting up co-ordinating machinery?

Mr. Fernyhough: I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry works in very close association with all the voluntary bodies, and that we make substantial grants for this purpose.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year 39 people were killed when agricultural tractors overturned, and that no one was killed in those tractors which were fitted with cabs? What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about this?

Mr. Fernyhough: I cannot say what I propose to do about it because this is the first that I have heard of it. I shall see that it is looked into, and if we can assist in any way the hon. and learned Gentleman can rest assured that we shall.

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider allocating funds to further research into the prevention of industrial accidents.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Ministry is in consultation with appropriate organisa-

tions about possible research on the safety of cranes and excavation work.
We are keeping other needs for research under review. The responsibility for providing funds rests partly with industry and needs to be considered on its merits in each case.

Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the helpful nature of his Answer will be widely welcomed because there is a grave shortage of funds for this work?

Mr. Fernyhough: As my hon. Friend will remember, I intimated in my reply to his previous Question that we make substantial grants wherever we think the work being carried out will prove effective in the matter about which he is so concerned.

Mr. Archer: While we are finding out new causes of industrial accidents, will my hon. Friend make a determined effort to eliminate the causes about which we know already, and set up a national council to review legislation on this subject?

Mr. Fernyhough: New legislation is constantly being introduced wherever we feel it is necessary. Whether my hon. Friend's suggestion would in any way make for better safety measures is something that we will consider.

Training (Grants)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour if he will seek to make grants towards the capital costs of training for skilled labour within firms.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I have no indication that the grants available through Industrial Training Boards are not sufficient for this purpose, but if the hon. Member has some particular type of case in mind I would be glad to have details of it.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not true that a grant of £2 million was offered by the hon. Gentleman's Department for skilled training, but was turned down by the trade unions and is now available only for training semi-skilled workers? What is he going to do about this scandalous state of affairs?

Mr. Hattersley: The scandalous state of affairs as outlined by the hon. Gentleman does not exist. The sum of £2 million is available for the training of semi-skilled workers, but other comprehensive schemes for the training of skilled workers are available at Government training centres and other places, and by and large get the wholesale co-operation of the trade unions.

Productivity Pay Increases (Proposals)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour how many applications have been received for productivity pay increases to be approved; and what he expects will be the average time spent before an answer is given in each case.

Mr. Hattersley: By 16th February, the Ministry had received 284 proposals for increase in pay during the period of severe restraint under the criterion relating to productivity and efficiency.
The time taken to deal with each proposal varies considerably according to the complexity of the case and the need to seek further information. It is not possible to give an estimate of the time necessary to reach decisions on the outstanding proposals.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not quite clear from this experience that it is totally impracticable for the Government to try to attempt to control every wage increase and assess its merits? Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that this is, in fact, an administrative impossibility for all time?

Mr. Hattersley: I have never heard any proposal that the Government should control every wage increase and assess the merits of every one. Those which the Government have been asked to assess, those related to this criterion, have been dealt with with a good deal of dispatch and expedition.

Unemployment

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on present unemployment figures.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): Though the January figures showed a further increase in unemployment, they confirmed indications that the rate of increase has moderated since

November, 1966. The results of the February count will be published on 23rd February.

Mr. Winnick: Unlike the crocodile tears from the other side, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep concern in the Labour movement about the present unemployment figures, and that there is a fierce determination that these figures should not increase during the course of the year?

Mr. Gunter: I am aware of the deep concern felt by all people about any rise in unemployment.

Mr. Biffen: Before the right hon. Gentleman listens to any siren advice about the desirability of reflation, will he acquaint himself with the excellent Hobart Paper published today and written by Professor Paish?

Mr. Gunter: I happen to have read it already.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers wholly unemployed and on short-time working, respectively, in January, 1967; what estimates he will give for April, July, and October, 1967, and January, 1968; and what steps he is taking to reduce the numbers wholly unemployed and working short time.

Mr. Gunter: On 9th January, 1967, there were in Great Britain 527,350 persons registered as wholly unemployed and 72,807 persons temporarily stopped who had been temporarily laid off by their employers for a period which included the above date. These figures exclude certain other persons who, although temporarily laid off by their employers, were not unemployed on 9th January, 1967.
In the week ended 17th December, 1966, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that there were 164,900 operatives in manufacturing industries subject to short-time working arrangements.
I am not prepared to give any forward estimates of unemployment or short-time working. Measures to reduce unemployment are for the Government as a whole. In my own Department the employment, training and rehabilitation services are being developed and expanded.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend accept, however, that long-term calculations in this respect are most important? Would he agree that industrial and professional workers are looking to this Government to provide economic expansion coupled with full employment? Would he further agree that part of his Ministry's function is to bury Tory stop-go for ever?

Mr. Gunter: I understand the thinking behind my hon. Friend's remarks, but one rôle which I refuse to assume at the moment is that of a prophet.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proportion of the unemployed living in development areas is as high as it has ever been? Is he proposing special measures to help the regions, in view of the catastrophic effects of this Government's policy on the development areas?

Mr. Gunter: I doubt the accuracy of the first part of that question, but, as has already been indicated in a previous Question, the Board of Trade and the other Departments of Government are giving special attention to development areas.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister recall telling me last week that unemployment over the last month in Scotland increased by more than 10 per cent.—double the rate in England? Does he expect this increase to go on during the next year and will it continue to increase at double the rate for England?

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that, although the figures are bad in Scotland, they are not quite as bad as in the rest of the country. On his other point, I again decline to make a prophesy.

Mr. Heller: Would my right hon. Friend agree, without making any exaggerated statements, that unemployment has nevertheless increased in development areas, particularly on Merseyside? Will he make certain that the President of the Board of Trade steps up his activity in this direction to ensure that employment is brought to these areas?

Mr. Gunter: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, as my

hon. Friend knows, is already taking a very active interest in the Merseyside area.

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage of employed workers registered as unemployed in the South-Western Development Area, in the other development areas together, and in the remainder of Great Britain.

Mr. Fernyhough: At 9th January, 1967, the percentage rate of unemployment in the South-Western Development Area was 6·1, in other development areas 4·1, and in the remainder of Great Britain 2·1.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would not my hon. Friend agree that these figures are somewhat disturbing? Will he consider consulting his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether some additional assistance could be given to the worst hit areas, possibly by an adjustment of Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Fernyhough: As I have intimated, the question of S.E.T. is under review, as are all other matters. They must be taken into account when my right hon. Friend is framing his Budget. My hon. Friend will be aware that the area about which he is speaking is in a development area. Since 1964, four new factories have been completed there and two of those have already been allocated. He can take it for granted that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will do everything he can, and that we shall give him all the assistance we can, to see that his constituents find the work which they are seeking.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the proportionate increase in unemployment in the South-Western Development Area between the latest figures which he has given and those of June, 1966, and for the country as a whole?

Mr. Fernyhough: Not without notice; but if the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question he will certainly be given them.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he should have this background information and that if he had it, it would b seen that unemployment in


the South-Western Development Area has risen proportionately since June, 1966, very much more than for the country as a whole, and that thus the Prime Minister's assurance that the development areas would be exempted from the 20th July measures has been shown to be nonsense?

Mr. Fernyhough: I would very much doubt that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— but I will see that the right hon. Gentleman gets the information he is seeking.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has given show that the measures that have already been taken are not sufficient and that something further should be done for the South-West?

Mr. Fernyhough: Of course, I appreciate that the figures are unsatisfactory. That is why I said that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is doing everything he can to provide further jobs there.

Employment (Professional and Executive Register)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Labour how present economic difficulties have affected placings by the executive sections of employment exchanges.

Mr. Fernyhough: In the last half of 1966 placings by the Professional and Executive Register were lower than in the last half of 1965 by a little over 6 per cent.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that some executives who have been sacked are having tremendous difficulties because they are in their forties and fifties? May we be told what action is being taken generally throughout industry and commerce to deal with discrimination because people happen to be in their late forties or early fifties?

Mr. Fernyhough: The staff on the Professional Executive Register are doing all that they can, and I could give my hon. Friend numerous individual cases in which men far beyond that age have been placed in very well-paid jobs. At the moment the rate of finding jobs for them is averaging 150 a week where it was averaging 160 a week at the beginning of the year.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the hon. Gentleman take very seriously the point made by his hon. Friend? Will he agree that from this side of the House a number of positive proposals were made to him for improving the Professional and Executive Register, and will he ask his right hon. Friend to take some action to improve the service that is given?

Mr. Fernyhough: I should like to say two things to the right hon. Gentleman: first, the number of people whom we have placed from this register each year since its inception has gone up—

Sir K. Joseph: Unemployment has gone up, too.

Mr. Fernyhough: I said that the number whom we have placed has gone up. That means placed in employment. With regard to the suggestions made during the Adjournment debate, as I then pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, we will act upon some of them. He knows that all of them would have demanded an increase in Government expenditure, and an increase in the number of civil servants, and I hope that if we do both these things we shall not hear objections from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what improvements he proposes to make in the Professional and Executive Register in order to improve its service to those who register for employment.

Mr. Fernyhough: Within the limits set by the recruiting practices of industry, the Register has had a record of steadily increasing success. In the past year more staff were made available and we are considering whether further extension is practicable.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not being a little complacent? Does he not recognise that this Register has success in people registering for jobs but the difficulty is that the Professional and Executive Register does not get jobs coming into it which it can give to people registering for those jobs? Will he do something about this?

Mr. Fernyhough: Far from not getting jobs, I am happy to inform the hon.


Member that last year we placed 7,900 people from the Register in very good employment.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the hon. Gentleman stop taking credit for a rise in placings at a time when there is greatly increasing unemployment and a need for placings?

Mr. Fernyhough: If we are discussing the success of the Register and each year the number of people placed by the Register goes up, that surely shows that it is a successful organisation.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Labour what instructions he has given to local offices of his Department regarding the Selective Employment Tax which will have the effect of imposing the tax on independently owned warehouses while similar warehouses owned by manufacturers will be paid the Selective Employment Tax premium.

Mr. Hattersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) on 12th December, 1966. —[Vol. 738, c. 3.]

Mr. Higgins: Is it not the case that independent warehouses are being discriminated against as a result of the arbitrary decision which the Minister has made and his absurd adherence to the Standard Industrial Classification as the basis for levying this tax? Will he reverse this decision which is discriminatory, arbitrary, and quite contrary to the economic prosperity of the country?

Mr. Hattersley: As I understand the allegations, it is based on the fear that warehouses which are part of a manufacturing concern can be used as a base for wholesale and retail sales drives. In fact, the rules which govern the administration of the S.E.T., which say that half the employees must not be concerned in non-qualifying activities, mean that the discrimination is not half as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Labour in which sections of his Department he has been able to offset the cost of administering the Selective Employment Tax against lower salary

costs for the year 1966–67, as stated in his Supplementary Estimate for that year.

Mr. Hattersley: The reference to Selective Employment Tax does not relate to the cost of administering the Selective Employment Payments Act but to the estimated tax payable in respect of the staff in my Department. The partial offset by way of lower salary costs is mainly the result of newly-appointed or promoted staff entering their salary scales at or near the minimum, thus reducing the average salary cost.

Miss Quennell: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that his Ministry will do nothing whatever to diminish the strength of the health, welfare and safety departments of the Ministry and the employment service department of the Ministry?

Mr. Hattersley: I can give that absolute assurance.

Manpower Statistics

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee on Government Statistical Services recommends that his Department should be responsible for collecting manpower statistics on an occupational as well as an industry basis; and whether he will seek powers to carry out this recommendation.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend has adequate powers, and the Ministry already collects some manpower statistics on an occupational basis. Occupational statistics for manufacturing industries and part of the distributive trades are obtained from annual surveys. The extended Family Expenditure Survey will provide improved statistics for broad occupational groups. Other occupational statistics are available through other Ministries. Surveys being made by industrial training boards will provide additional information. We are considering whether we can provide more occupational statistics.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, but is my hon. Friend aware that we still do not have adequate statistics of earnings by occupation and that this is one of the major obstacles, among others, to the efficient working of the prices and incomes


policy? Will he ensure that something is done about that?

Mr. Hattersley: I accept some of the problems which my hon. Friend mentions. That is why the final sentence of my Answer promised to review the present position.

Sir K. Joseph: Apart from the prices and incomes policy, will the hon. Gentleman accept that there have been widespread criticisms, the most recent in the Economist of 11th February, of the whole of the statistical services of the Ministry? Will he undertake that his right hon. Friend will consider these services and not suddenly reproduce, as last year, a discovery of a quarter of a million extra workers who had not been known to exist?

Mr. Hattersley: I believe that the last sentence of my original Answer made that clear, but I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would be among the first to complain if we asked industry for statistics which it was reluctant to give.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will seek powers to improve the statistical information available to him with respect to the employment of coloured workers, particularly in skilled jobs.

Mr. Fernyhough: No, Sir. I do not think it would be right to ask employers to differentiate between coloured and other workers in their staff records.

Mr. Marquand: Is my hon. Friend aware that, almost universally, people in this field—all immigrant organisations, for example—allege that there is considerable racial discrimination against coloured workers in skilled jobs, particularly clerical jobs, notably in insurance and banking? Is he aware that unless there are proper statistics, it is impossible to find out whether these allegations are true?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that it would not be in keeping with the Government's policy of seeking to promote integration by racial equality if we asked employers to make clear in their records the colour and country of origin of a worker.

Youth Employment Service

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now make a statement on the future of the Youth Employment Service.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir. As I have told the hon. Member, I first wish to consult the interested local authority associations and my National Youth Employment Council.

Mr. Scott: Is not the Minister aware that in October he promised a statement on this matter before Christmas? Is it not time that the House of Commons had a chance to discuss the Government's action—or, rather, non-action—on this Report?

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman has already been supplied with a progress report. If he suggests by his Question that nothing has been done since my Statement in December, 1965, he knows that this is quite untrue, and that a tremendous amount has been done. The consultations with local authorities and other interested bodies in what we hope will emerge as a fundamental change take many months; I am sorry to say it.

Mr. Crawshaw: Would my right hon. Friend agree that an employment officer has little opportunity of doing his job properly when he sees school-leavers only shortly before they leave? Has he any plans for getting employment officers allocated to particular schools or groups of schools, so that they can get to know the people whom they are trying to place in employment?

Mr. Gunter: Yes. This is one of the subjects among the matters for consultation of which I have spoken. With all hon. Members, I hope that we can arrive at some early conclusions on this matter.

Unemployment (Bideford)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of unemployed in the Bideford area; what is the comparison with the previous year; and what industries have produced this figure.

Mr. Fernyhough: On 9th January, 1967 the total number of persons registered as unemployed at the Bideford Employment Exchange was 427, of whom 27 were temporarily stopped. These figures were, respectively, 76 and 20 higher than on 10 January, 1966.
As the answer to the last part of the question consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mills: Yes, but does the hon. Gentlement realise that his own Government have sabotaged all the efforts in this area to overcome this problem? Will

INDUSTRIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT THE BIDEFORD EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE



9th January, 1967
10th January, 1966



Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total


Agriculture and horticulture
30
—
30
25
2
27


Manufacture of wooden containers and baskets
20
—
20
1
—
1


Construction
38
—
38
42
—
42


Transport and communication
33
—
33
41
—
41


Distributive trades
53
13
66
27
16
43


Insurance, banking and finance
19
1
20
12
1
13


Educational services
5
7
12
5
7
12


Entertainment and sport
11
2
13
7
—
7


Catering, hotels, etc.
29
22
51
22
33
55


Private domestic service
8
10
18
5
7
12


National government service
13
1
14
11
1
12


Local government service
11
—
11
7
—
7


Other industries and services
69
32
101
62
17
79



339
88
427
267
84
351

Unemployment (Okehampton)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of unemployed in the Okehampton area; and what plans he has to reduce this figure.

Mr. Fernyhough: On 9th January, 1967 the total number of persons registered as unemployed at the Okehampton Employment Exchange was 188, including one temporarily stopped. Our local officers are doing all they can to help those unemplayed to find other work and to provide training facilities where appropriate.

Mr. Mills: But does the hon. Gentleman realise, again, that the only way to overcome this problem in this area and many other similar areas is to allow it to be in the development area and thus attract industry?

Mr. Fernyhough: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of

he urge his colleagues to do something about it, first by removing the ridiculous Selective Employment Tax, which has caused most of this trouble?

Mr. Fernyhough: The town to which the hon. Gentleman refers is part of the South-Western Development Area. All the efforts of the Board of Trade are available and will be directed to it, as to any other development area. The effects of the Selective Employment Tax will obviously be reviewed, but it is not for me to say what the outcome of the review will be.

Following is the information:

my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Unemployment (Luton)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that the number of unemployed in Luton has more than doubled in the last 6 months While at the same time there were still a large number of advertised vacancies for skilled personnel, he will take steps to establish Government training facilities in this area.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not consider that the number of people both wanting and suitable for training in skilled trades in the Luton area justifies the establishment of a Government training centre there. The existing large training centre at Letchworth is within daily travelling distance of Luton.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that I have been approached by a large number of private individuals and


trade union branches calling for these additional training facilities? Will he undertake seriously to consider this matter again in view of the very real need for training in this area?

Mr. Hattersley: We will certainly reconsider if the actual demand for places suggests that the existing facilities are not adequate. But the information at the moment is that they are adequate.

Safety Provisions in Buildings (I.L.O. Convention)

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Labour whether the United Kingdom has yet ratified the International Labour Organisation Convention number 62, on Safety Provisions in Buildings; and, if not, what are the reasons for the delay.

Mr. Fernyhough: No. Our existing law, while largely in conformity with the requirements of this Convention, does not fully meet them.

Mr. Archer: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Convention has been on the book since 1937 and that 21 countries have found no difficulty in complying with it and ratifying it? Will he be more specific as to the difficulties?

Mr. Fernyhough: The points of difference between our existing law and the Convention have narrowed over the years as our legislation has been amended. The position now reached is that the outstanding points are now few and relate to differences in securing the same objective rather than to any failure on our part to legislate for protection against a particular hazard. It has always been the policy of British Governments not to ratify conventions until it has been possible to follow their requirements scrupulously.

Asbestos Workers (Safety Measures)

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce regulations to improve safety standards in the packing and loading of crocidolite.

Mr. Fernyhough: Regulations are already being prepared which will require improved methods of packing and handling for all types of asbestos, including crocidolite.

Mr. Archer: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he accept the evidence that a minimal exposure to this substance may cause a malignant tumour and that whole bags of this substance are bursting and spilling at a number of docks and railway goods yards? Will he treat this matter as one of urgency?

Mr. Fernyhough: The dock regulations are being reviewed. It is intended that the revised regulations will call for palletisation and mechanical handling of asbestos cargoes wherever possible. Failing this, the use of impermeable bags will be required, as will methods of handling which do not damage the bags.

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking in regard to the promotion of research concerning the physical damage to individuals working with asbestos.

Mr. Fernyhough: We believe we already have enough information about the effects of asbestos to justify our taking action, and my right hon. Friend, therefore, is revising the Asbestos Industry Regulations. Meanwhile the Ministry is in close contact with the organisations which are carrying out fundamental research in this field.

Dame Joan Vickers: While that will be very satisfactory, will the hon. Gentleman also look into the question of protective clothing, which is very hot, causes sweating and also, of course, the visor to steam up, making working conditions very difficult?

Mr. Fernhough: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point.

Mr. Costain: In the course of the investigations, has any difference been found in risks from white and blue asbestos?

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes. There is a difference in health effects. Both kinds of asbestos are being carefully studied and steps are being taken to protect the health of those who come in contact with both kinds.

Equal Pay

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects the discussions between his Department, the


Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry concerning equal pay to be completed.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in his discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on the subject of equal pay.

Mr. Gunter: I expect the current discussions at official level to be completed within two months. The report of those discussions will subsequently need consideration by the Government, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.

Dr. Summerskill: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of wage restraint should not be used to delay even longer any action taken on equal pay? Would not he agree that priority should now be given to the claims of those who do not even receive the rate for the job?

Mr. Gunter: The T.U.C. and the C.B.I. have agreed that account would have to be taken of the economic situation and the productivity, prices and incomes policy in deciding the timing and phasing of any action on equal pay.

Mrs. Butler: What has been my right hon. Friend's response to the request of the national women's organisations with special experience of women's employment to be brought into these discussions?

Mr. Gunter: Consideration has not been given to that point at the present time. When we see the official report, I will pay attention to the points raised.

Dame Irene Ward: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree, following the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). that it would be wise to include not only the unions and the employers but also those who specialise in this field and who know a great deal more about some of the problems and difficulties experienced by people than perhaps these other very distinguished bodies?

Mr. Gunter: The official party has been carefully looking at this, and both sides of industry have been paying attention to the wage structure and the methods of implementation and phasing in industry.

Whilst I have the profoundest regard for many of the national women's organisations, I should imagine that the last thing they want is to get mixed up with rows about the wage structure.

Unemployment (Rhodesian Sanctions)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the additional degree of unemployment so far caused in Great Britain as a result of the Rhodesian sanctions policy.

Mr. Gunter: No such estimate is possible, but the effect cannot have been, nor is it likely to be, other than very little.

Mr. King: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that deliberately to create unemployment in Great Britain in order to produce an effect increasingly unlikely to be produced in Rhodesia is a most distasteful operation and one with which no unemployed man, if he were asked, would willingly agree?

Mr. Gunter: We have no evidence that unemployment has been created by this situation.

Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if unemployment in this country should be caused by the prolongation of this policy, some of us would support more drastic measures?

Mr. Gunter: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support but that question had better be directed to another quarter.

Crosby Steelworks (Dispute)

Mr. John Page: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to intervene in the demarcation dispute between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation about whose members should man new machines at the Crosby steelworks, which have given rise to a trade dispute and which is threatening the secret project Champion for producing stainless steel tubes.

Mr. Gunter: I have appointed a court of inquiry to inquire into the causes and circumstances of this dispute. The men on strike resumed work on 9th February.

Mr. Page: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people feel that this is the small tip of a restrictive practices iceberg and want a much stronger lead and statement from the Government on the whole matter of demarcation disputes?

Mr. Gunter: I do not think that it is quite fair to say that this is entirely allied to restrictive practices. This is one of the consequences we shall have to meet in many industries when new types of machines are introduced and old skills are disappearing.

Mr. Tinn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the iron and steel trade unions have been among the best in the country in their readiness to accept new methods and to avoid disputes?

Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir, I would agree with that.

Sir K. Joseph: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) was referring not to restrictive practices but to demarcation disputes? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the men who have resumed work are using the new machinery at issue? Can he also say whether he is considering asking the Royal Commission on the Law of Trade Unions to accept as much evidence as can be made available about this particularly unfortunate dispute, so that it may have adequate material on which to make judgment on demarcation disputes?

Mr. Gunter: Whilst the Court of Inquiry is sitting, the machines in dispute are not being used. I will ensure that Lord Donovan has all the information.

Dental Technicians (Wages and Conditions)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the resolutions of the National Joint Council for the Craft of Dental Technicians concerning employees' wages and conditions of work are being implemented by their employers; how many dental technicians have been unemployed, and for what periods during the past two years; and how many unfilled vacancies there are now.

Mr. Hattersley: We have received no representations from dental technicians that their wages and conditions of work are not in accord with the resolutions of the National Joint Council for the Craft of Dental Technicians. The figures asked for are not available.

Mr. Iremonger: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a good deal of anxiety and discontent underlying this question? Could he arrange to see the Dental Laboratories Association to discuss the whole range of difficulties it has in mind in meeting its commitments, in view of the failure of the Minister to give proper directions for the prices to be paid by dentists?

Mr. Hattersley: The underlying discontent to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a product of the nature of the employment of dental technicians and is more properly raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Shop Stewards (Training)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to see that shop stewards are trained in their duties and given an accredited place in industrial relations.

Mr. Hattersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary on this subject on 31st October, 1966.—[Vol. 735, cc. 17–18.]

Employment Estimates

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Labour when seasonably adjusted monthly employment estimates will be available.

Mr. Fernyhough: Estimates of the total numbers in civil employment are only made quarterly. Seasonally adjusted figures are issued. I hope that seasonally adjusted figures will become available shortly for the monthly series of the total numbers in manufacturing industry and in all industries covered by the Index of Industrial Production.

Mr. Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Ministry of Labour has been unable to provide these monthly figures before now, bearing in mind that, at least since early 1964, the National Institute has been able to calculate and


publish such figures? Is the D.E.A. forced to work out its own figures for those industries covered by the Index of Industrial Production, for which it is necessary to calculate such figures and for which, presumably, it would appear necessary for the Department to work out its own figures?

Mr. Fernyhough: We are aware of the need for more information, but it is difficult to obtain the necessary staff. Two posts for statisticians have been advertised for two years. Neither has been filled and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that men of this calibre must be obtained if we are to gather the information for which he is seeking.

Plastics Boat Building (Training)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Labour why the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board, after two years of active existence, has no plans for the training of personnel in glass fibre techniques for the reinforced plastics boat building industry; and whether he will make a statement, in view of the fact that this industry makes a useful contribution to the economy.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour when the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board is going to make available training in glass fibre techniques for personnel in the plastics boat building industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hattersley: The Shipbuilding Industry Training Board has set up a Working Party to consider the training of fibre glass workers, but it is too early to say when the training recommendations will become available or whether the Board will itself provide training facilities.

Mr. Braine: That is most unsatisfactory. How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile the complete failure of the Board, after two years, to provide adequate training facilities with an increase in the current year of 230 per cent. in the levy? Will he give the House an assurance that this kind of farce, this nonsense, will stop and that the Board will be told to get on with its job?

Mr. Hattersley: It is perhaps appropriate that a synthetic product should be dealt with with such synthetic anger—

Mr. Braine: On a point of order. I am representing the considered views of my constituent, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those most unpleasant remarks.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Braine: Disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ruled that it was not a point of order. Mr. Gresham Cooke.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is a matter of urgency? Is he aware that had he looked into the matter at the Boat Show he would have seen that the majority of boats there were made of fibre glass and now he would have seen in the Press that the hovercraft industry, as evidenced by the latest Hovermarine Ltd. designs, is actively interested in fibre glass and the use of reinforced plastics? Will he see to it that the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board gets on with its job?

Mr. Hattersley: I am conscious of the need to adapt methods used for fibre glass products to this end, as, indeed, is the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board. The Board made it clear that it intends to proceed carefully with its advice about the application of these techniques. That is why the Board initially raised only a small levy and why the second and third year levies, although greater, are not as great as the amounts levied by some other boards. It is the intention of the Board to improve techniques in this respect and to pay grants for this work as soon as it is in a position to make precise recommendations.

Sir K. Joseph: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that it will not conduce to the speedy dispatch of business if he unnecessarily makes personal comments on the manner in which perfectly proper questions are put to him?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Braine: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg


to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Bonus Schemes

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to publicise to employers the fact that production bonus schemes are not affected by the standstill and that any such bonuses earned may be honoured.

Mr. Gunter: Increases in pay resulting directly from increased output under a scheme established before 20th July, 1966, are not subject to the standstill. A productivity scheme providing for increased pay established after 20th July, 1966 must satisfy the criteria relating to productivity and efficiency for the period of severe restraint. This follows from the White Papers on the Standstill and Period of Severe Restraint, and is well understood by employers' organisations and trade unions. Employers may obtain advice on the application of the incomes policy from any local or regional office of my Department or from my headquarters.

Mr. Spriggs: What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take against employers who break such agreements?

Mr. Gunter: I have no information at the moment about employers who have broken such agreements.

Mr. Ridley: Would the Minister confirm that no one may pay a productivity increase during this period unless he has obtained the consent of his Ministry, which is rather different from what he said in his original Answer?

Mr. Gunter: That is true. We are now dealing with 284 of these productivity agreements. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, our biggest problem with productivity agreements, not only since 20th July but before, has been that they were not productivity agreements at all but disguised wage increases. That is why we are giving the most careful attention to each productivity agreement, for we wish to ensure that productivity and efficiency are there.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now allow established schemes for payment of skilled tradesmen's grading bonuses to operate during the period of severe restraint.

Mr. Gunter: It would not be in accordance with the criteria for pay increases during that period that discretionary payments should be increased.

Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of these discretionary bonus schemes are in the wage sector rather than the salary sector and the effect of banning these schemes which are exactly analogous to ordinary salary increments in the salary sector is to discriminate against wage earners as compared with salary earners? Will he look at the matter in this light?

Mr. Gunter: I have looked very carefully into the matter, which is of great importance in the metal industries. The difficulty, as my hon. Friend has said, is that because of the nature of the wage structure here there is an element of discretionary increase. It was decided that, during the standstill and period of severe restraint, if we permitted discretionary increases that might lead to widespread evasion, quite apart from the effect that it would have had on workers who had had agreed increases which were to be deferred. The general question of merit increases and discretionary payments is being considered in the development of the incomes policy following the period of severe restraint.

Retail Distribution (Employees)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Labour what are the numbers of full-time male, full-time female and part-time female employees in retail distribution at present; and what were the respective numbers at the same time in 1966.

Mr. Fernyhough: At June, 1966, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that there were 769,000 male and 1,341,000 female employees in retail distribution.
Comprehensive information about part-time employment in this industry is not available, but on the basis of inquiries made of a sample of establishments with 11 or more workers, it is estimated that of all female employees about one in three works part-time—i.e. for less than 30 hours per week.

Mr. Gardner: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but, as the Selective Employment Tax is supposed to redeploy workers from retail distribution into


manufacturing industry, may I ask whether he does not think that more information should be available so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may review the matter in any consideration he is currently undertaking?

Mr. Fernyhough: It is very difficult for us to estimate how far the Selective Employment Tax has made any changes of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), but I have already indicated that the Selective Employment Tax, along with many other things, will be under review by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer within the next few weeks.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will the hon. Member consider the part-time workers, and particularly the part-time women workers, because as a result of the Selective Employment Tax thousands of them have lost their jobs?

Mr. Fernyhough: That is another question, but if the hon. Lady believes that to be the case I am quite sure that there will be some evidence of it available to my right hon. Friend, who will obviously take it into consideration when he makes the review of the kind of which I have already spoken.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that even among those who agree in principle with this tax there is growing concern about married women, who are being shaken out of their jobs only to the employment exchange? Will he realise that these people will never end up in manufacturing industry, and could not something be done in remitting this tax or at least reducing it?

Mr. Fernyhough: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I have enough troubles without taking on any of those of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will see that my right hon. Friend has his attention drawn to the remarks made on this Question by various hon. Members.

Lift Doors (Windows)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Labour if he will ensure that all lift doors are provided with a small window when he revises the Regulations for lifts under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.

Mr. Fernyhough: No, Sir.

Mrs. Butler: Does my hon. Friend realise that the modern coffin-like lift is very much feared by many elderly people and others in high blocks of flats who have to use these lifts every day, and that there is also a rather serious danger when people are trapped in lifts due to breakdowns for any length of time? Would he please take some advice on the safety factor, and on other factors involved in the Question?

Mr. Fernyhough: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that, of all the many inquiries made, this is the first time anything like this has been suggested. What we have to do is, as far as possible, to see that Regulations affecting lifts under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act are in complete accord with those already in operation under the Factories Acts, because it would be very bad to have two lots of Regulations of a different character applying to the same kind of equipment and machinery.

Dame Irene Ward: Should not the hon. Gentleman be delighted by having a good suggestion made for the first time in view of the fact that his Government set great store by modernisation?

Mr. Fernyhough: I indicated that this was the first time that the suggestion had been put to us. When a sensible suggestion is put to us we are always prepared to a look at it. In all the many conversations and conferences we have had in this matter with interested parties, this has never been raised before.

Seamen (Pearson Committee's Report)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will make a statement on the Report of the Pearson Committee on Seamen;
(2) when he expects to receive the Report of the Pearson Committee of Inquiry on Seamen.

Mr. Gunter: I have received the court of inquiry's final Report and I am arranging for it to be published early next month.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister going to await the publication of this Report before bringing social justice to the seamen


on Trinity House whose back pay has not been back-dated like that of other seamen who came out on strike? May I have a straightforward answer to this, because the Prime Minister has twice refused to answer a question from me on this point?

Mr. Gunter: The Question asked if I will make a statement on the Report of the Pearson Committee. I cannot follow how that relates to seamen of Trinity House.

Mr. McNamara: Can my right hon. Friend indicate when we may expect legislation for the revision of the Merchant Shipping Acts arising out of the Report?

Mr. Gunter: Yes, indeed. The last part of the Report lays down what I hope will be the guidelines to the revision of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Roberts-Arundel, Limited, Stockport (Dispute)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made by the intervention of his officers in the official dispute at Messrs. Roberts-Arundel, Limited, Stockport.

Mr. Hattersley: Our officers have had separate discussions and two joint meetings with the parties. It has not been possible, so far, to find any basis for settlement of this long and difficult disput. We shall continue to keep in close touch with developments.

Mr. Orbach: Is my hon. Friend aware that the management of this firm is alleged to have refused to accept collective bargaining and in addition, I understand, is now advertising for workers to replace those on strike at 10 per cent. to 50 per cent. more than those engaged in the official dispute? Will he take action to inform the Prices and Incomes Board about the matter, or institute proceedings himself if he can?

Mr. Hattersley: This has been a long and bitter dispute around which many rumours have circulated. If my hon. Friend has any facts to support the allegations he referred to, I shall be glad to see them.

Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that this American-controlled company

has brought American employees from America to help run the firm under "scab" conditions while the dispute is taking place and that it is incumbent upon the Ministry of Labour to do something about this problem?

Mr. Hattersley: This is a very complicated and long dispute. I am sure that one of the factors not relevant to the dispute is that it is an American firm.

British Railways (Chief Accountant's Office)

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the redundancies which will arise by the proposal to transfer the work of the British Railways chief accountant's office at Newcastle-upon-Tyne to York; and what proposals he has to deal with those who will be displaced.

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is proposing to take to provide alternative employment for staff at present employed by the chief accountant, British Railways, at Newcastle who become redundant as a result of the merger of British Railways Eastern and North-Eastern Regions.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am informed that the merger involves the transfer of about 80 accounts office staff from Newcastle to York and 20 to Peterborough over the next six to eight months. Only those who are unwilling to tranfer are likely to be redundant and the employment exchange service will do everything it can to help them to find alternative work.

Mr. Randall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is disturbing that 80 jobs should be transferred from a development area? Was he informed of this transfer in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government that jobs should be directed to development areas?

Mr. Fernyhough: As my hon. Friend is aware, these redundancies arose because of the merging of two offices, which is likely to lead to a reduction of staff of 1,500 over the next 12 months. I cannot say, of course, what consultations have taken place with the Ministry, but I can say that consultations have taken place at every stage with the unions concerned. I can only repeat that the Department


will do everything possible to find employment for those who find themselves unable to transfer.

Mr. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents affected by this merger are deeply resentful that a publicly-owned industry should be pursuing a policy directly in opposition to avowed Government policy? How long are the Government Front Bench prepared to accept this situation?

Mr. Fernyhough: If the North-East never has to face a bigger problem than this in a merger where 1,500 people will eventually be without their jobs, because as staff is run down replacements will not be taken on, I have much more hope for its future than I have had in the past.

Dame Irene Ward: Would not the hon. Gentleman think it wiser to transfer staff from York to Newcastle? In view of the fact that this is directly against the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government, will the hon. Gentleman support my suggestion that the Minister of Transport should give a directive to British Railways against the transfer? Now, answer straight.

Mr. Fernyhough: I think the House would enjoy it much better if a question which should be addressed to the Minister of Transport were addressed to her by the hon. Lady.

Dame Irene Ward: I have so addressed it.

Mr. Ridley: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the merger will make the Chief Accountant's Department more efficient and whether it will lead to a reduction in the deficit of British Railways?

Mr. Fernyhough: I cannot say either —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because I am not answerable here for British Railways—but British Railways have throughout consulted the unions concerned on this matter, and I am satisfied that if it had been possible to avoid any redundancies in the North-East as the consequence of this merger the unions themselves would have seen to it.

Dame Irene Ward: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter

on the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister of Labour, to whom I put down the second Question, No. 94, seeking a reply in respect of the provision of allowances which are normally provided by the Ministry of Labour, to transfer it to the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Speaker: The question of transfer of hon. Members' Questions from Minister to Minister is a matter for Ministers, not Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Urwin: On a point of order. Is it strictly in order for the hon. Lady to give notice to raise this matter on the Adjournment when the Question was raised by an hon. Friend of mine on this side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite in order.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Leader of the Opposition (Facilities)

Mr. John Lee: asked the Lord President of the Council what facilities are provided in the Palace of Westminster for assistants of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): In accordance with the recommendation of the Services Committee, the whole of the second floor of the Star Court Building was put at the disposal of the Opposition for allocation to members of the Shadow Cabinet and their secretaries as they thought best.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has the use of two rooms on the second floor of the Star Court Building, and there is also his secretary's room adjoining his own room behind the Speaker's Chair.

Mr. Lee: In view of the ineffectiveness of the Oposition in general, and its Leader in particular, could not these facilities be reallocated to more deserving people?

Ministerial Statements (Morning Sittings)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has now made arrangements to ensure


that only Ministerial statements of secondary importance are made at morning meetings of this honourable House.

Mr. Crossman: About the method of selection, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the supplementary question put by the right hon. Gentleman on the Business Statement on 9th February. It would seem from the interest shown that the House welcomes the double opportunity for statements.— [Vol. 740, cc. 1834–35.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the words quoted in the Question are the words that he himself used in the undertaking he gave to the House on 14th December? Is he aware that the Minister of Health has twice made statements of substantial importance, and does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as consistent with the duty he owes the House as its Leader to allow his colleagues to flout the undertaking he has given?

Mr. Crossman: That is a grossly misleading interpretation of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health did. In fact, I would put this to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the fact that the statements were made in the mornings in these particular cases got them the publicity that I hoped it would, which gave them an extra importance. We should not underrate the advantage from the point of view of the House of having statements made then which would previously normally have been Written Answers without the right of supplementary questions. I think that this is just what happens, and that both statements made in the morning were statements which I intended should be made in the morning.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that we had a further farcical situation this morning, with hardly anyone in the House at all—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Question about Ministerial statements, and the hon. Member's supplementary question does not arise on this Question.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The Leader of the House says that the importance of these statements—taking, for example, the one on vehicles for the disabled—arose from the publicity subsequently

given to them, but is not the importance of the statement surely immense to those involved?

Mr. Crossman: Of course, as I made clear to, I think, my right hon. Friend the Member for one of the Leeds constituencies who pointed out that from one point of view all statements are equally important, I thought that in the afternoons we ought to deal with the kind of statements which the House would resent being moved to the mornings, whereas in the mornings we could have a number of statements which have their own importance but which normally would have been in the form of Written Answers. I adhere to that view.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: One a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, when you stopped me putting my supplementary question to the Leader of the House I was about to discuss the statement which was made by the Minister of Health this morning—

Mr. Speaker: There was no statement made by the Minister of Health this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Order. He spoke in answer to a debate.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is using up Question Time.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister may not have made a statement in fact, but he made use of the debate to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Question.

Oath of Allegiance (Welsh Language)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he now has to enable hon. Members to take the oath in the Welsh language.

Mr. Crossman: My predecessor asked the Select Committee on Procedure to look at this matter, and I think we should await any report it may produce.

Mr. Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that on 9th March next the people of the famous Rhondda Valley may rouse Wales and shake the Government


by returning again to Parliament a Plaid Cymru candidate, and that this matter of taking the oath in Welsh has some urgency?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware that this most skilfully drafted Question gives a great chance for propaganda statements.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I understand that the Plaid Cymru candidate for Rhondda, West does not speak Welsh?

Mr. Evans: On a point of order. May I say that my friend the Plaid Cymru candidate is Welsh-speaking—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all deference to Wales, that is not a point of order.

Library (Information Retrieval)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Lord President of the Council what consideration has been given to the use of a computer for information retrieval in the House of Commons Library.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have been asked to reply.
Serious consideration has been given for some years to the use of a computer by the House of Commons Library. Although computer techniques promise important improvements in the methods of storing information and retrieving it when required, detailed consultations with computer agencies indicate that these methods would not yet be economic for the work of the Library. The matter is, however, currently under investigation by the Library Sub-Committee.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, as I am sure he does, that the best service of this type is vital to ordinary back benchers in the permanent struggle that goes on against the Executive? Would he give more details of what the difficulties are, because if finance is to be a main difficulty this House should be informed of it and be able to give a decision on the matter?

Mr. Silverman: The importance of the Question is fully appreciated. As a matter of fact, in this instance it is not finance that presents the greatest immediate difficulty. The hon. Member will know that the range of Members' in-

terests is enormous, and makes the problem of devising an appropriate computer language extremely difficult. Investigations have been made into the possible savings in time and money in the production of (a) an accessible and full index to the Parliamentary papers, and (b) answers to hon. Members' requests for searches in HANSARD. Neither proposal promised economy, and (b) was not even practicable at this stage of computer development.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this computer would work in Welsh?

Mr. Silverman: We have sufficient difficulty in devising a computer language without going into regions of Parliamentary competence.

BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (SUPPORT COSTS)

Mr. Frank Allaun: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes following the announcement by the West German Government that they no longer feel bound by their offer to buy British military equipment worth £31½ million to help offset the foreign exchange costs of the B.A.O.R.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): The Federal German Government have made no statement on this subject and we have therefore no reason to believe that a final decision has been taken. Herr Duckwitz warned us that the Federal Government were thinking in these terms when he was in London on 9th February, and we made it clear that we could not accept this as the Federal Government's last word. The position now is as it was stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 16th February. We shall be pursuing the whole question at the tripartite talks, which are due to resume shortly.
I would remind the House that the German offer of £31·5 million was formally recorded in the joint communiquè approved by both Governments at that time. The then German Minister of Finance told us that it should be regarded as guaranteed. It was also recorded that they hoped to improve on


it. My right hon. Friend and I, of course, discussed this when we were in Bonn, and I am confident that the German Government see this, as we do ourselves, as a problem for which a solution must be found.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Foreign Secretary suggesting that the Bonn Finance Ministry's statement on Saturday did not represent the Bonn Government? Since Herr Strauss has now gone back even on his previous utterly inadequate offer, will our Government start drastically reducing our forces in Germany now without waiting till July? Secondly, to overcome housing difficulties, will the Government demobilise men and slow down recruitment?

Mr. Brown: I do not regard statements in the newspapers, which are not in fact the reports of what Ministers and Prime Ministers have said, as necessarily being Government decisions, whether they happen in this country or in Germany, and I repeat to my hon. Friend that there has been no statement by the Federal Government, no communication to us, and that the tripartite talks are due to resume next week. I am not, therefore, called upon to do anything in the meantime.

Lord Balniel: While I am glad to hear that no final decision has been reached on this matter, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he would agree that, in broader terms, if we are interested in getting into Europe politically, it is unwise to threaten unilateral withdrawal of troops from Europe militarily?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Brown: I honestly urge the noble Lord to keep these two issues separate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] We can stir up an awful amount of difficulty in all kinds of directions if we muddle up these two things. I do not want to make unilateral withdrawal of troops if it can be avoided, but for quite a different reason. Any withdrawals on the Continent of Europe should be due to rational discussion and decision about the level of forces that we need there to face any particular threat at any particular moment; I think this is the atmosphere in which to look at it. But, of course,

that does not mean that we, Britain, should be faced with a special problem of foreign exchange with which nobody else is faced.

Mr. Winnick: But is it not a fact that it is about time we stopped allowing ourselves to be played about with by the West Germans over this question? Since we cannot afford troops in Germany and if the West Germans are not agreeable to paying the cost, is it not really about time we said to them that those troops should come home?

Mr. Brown: I do not agree, and I actively dislike the opening sentence of my hon. Friend's question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We and the West Germans and a lot of other people in Europe have a tremendous interest in not repeating the mistakes for which the last generation paid in the 'thirties; I do not want to walk the same road again. On the other hand, I repeat that if we are going to keep troops on the mainland of Europe, it is not only for our own benefit —although let us remind ourselves, it is in large part for our benefit—but also for other people's benefit, and, therefore, we ought to look at the consequential results of such an operation.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the Foreign Secretary not agree, in considering the posting and the keeping of British forces overseas, that there is a much stronger case for keeping British forces in Malta than in Germany, because in Malta there is little foreign exchange which is affected?

Mr. Brown: I do not think the two questions are connected, but even if they were I am not sure that I would agree.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Foreign Secretary not aware that some of his colleagues—for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as others—have frequently stated over the past year or so that if we cannot come to an arrangement with the Bonn Government we should withdraw some of our troops? Why the change? If he says it has nothing to do with our going into the Common Market, what has it to do with? If he is asking the House to wait till July and some arrangement is made, are we to understand that nothing is to be done in the meantime?

Mr. Brown: On the first point, there is no change. If my right hon. Friend will do me the courtesy of reading what I have said, he will see that there is no change from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said and I have said here. On the second point, I repeat that this has nothing to do with the question whether we should then go into wider European Economic Community. I have fogotten what the third point was.

Mr. Shinwell: I asked whether we shall have to wait until July before we get a final solution.

Mr. Brown: We have undertaken, in return for some arrangements that were made, that we would not remove troops off the mainland until the end of June. That was an undertaking honourably entered into for honourable purposes, out of which we have received practical benefits. I am sure that the House would wish us to keep our part of the bargain.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does this not show that the question of support costs is a good deal more difficult than the Government thought when the Prime Minister in this House sneered at those who negotiated agreements under the previous Government?

Mr. Brown: If it shows anything, it shows that it was a good deal more difficult than those who negotiated took account of at the time.

Mr. Alfred Morris: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his attempt to calm the atmosphere on this matter, may I ask him whether he would agree that it would be a cynical breach of faith for the West German Government to depart in any way from the guarantee, and can he say what contingency planning there has been for the housing of families and troops if they commit this breach of faith?

Mr. Brown: The whole House knows that there is no better calmer of emotions than I am. On my hon. Friend's second point, I think it would be a rather serious matter if the arrangement which was entered into in good faith was departed from. With regard to the third part of his supplementary question, I think that I ought not to be pressed to answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some interests in this country, including some so-called national newspapers, which are only too ready to stir up bad relations between this country and West Germany? At the same time, will he assure the House that he will continue to make clear to all our allies in N.A.T.O., including the West Germans, that it is only if this country can get into a healthy balance of payments position that we can play our full part in the N.A.T.O. Alliance?

Mr. Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. To stir up bad feeling with the West Germans is one of the worst steps that we could take. I repeat that, having lived through the 'thirties in my formative period, I feel that one of the worst things that could be done again would be to stir up the feelings which make it difficult for a democratic Government to live and thereby feed the forces on which the non-democratic forces grow. I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman about that. I agree with him, too, on his last point.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if the Federal Government should repudiate the assurances of their predecessors, our commitments in West Germany are bound to be less binding on us than they otherwise would be?

Mr. Brown: I do not really see how I can be expected to answer a hypothetical question. We have not reached that position yet. Hon Members may choose to decide for themselves that we may some day reach it, but we simply have not reached it yet. If my hon. Friends want to avoid the mistakes of the 'thirties, the best way they can help is by stopping acting as though they assume that any democratic Government in West Germany is a bad one.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no withdrawal of troops without full and adequate consultation with our N.A.T.O. as well as W.E.U. allies?

Mr. Brown: Again, we are in the hypothetical question area. Should it be necessary to consider withdrawal, of course we shall observe our treaty commitments.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend confirm absolutely that the Government stand by the declarations made on this subject to the House of Commons and the country by the Prime Minister on 20th July and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3rd May last year? Would he not also agree that the postponement of the conclusion of this matter from last autumn to this spring was done as a convenience for the West German Government? Would he not agree that it would make it all the more reprehensible if the German Government were to use that interval to go back on pledges which they had already made?

Mr. Brown: The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is, yes, all our statements are in accord. On the second part of the supplementary question. I have no evidence that the West German Government were, as my hon. Friend puts it, making a convenience of it. There are problems both ways. As my right hon. Friend said when we came back from Bonn: we understand theirs and they understand ours. I do not think that there is any reason to assume that either is trying to take advantage of the other.

Mr. Tapsell: When the Foreign Secretary is reflecting, as he has done three

times today, on the unwisdom of stirring up bad relations with the West German Government, is he satisfied that it is an entire coincidence that the apparently less cordial relations between Britain and Germany in recent days bear no relation whatever to his recent remarks about the the Oder-Neisse line?

Mr. Brown: That had to come from somewhere. The hon. Gentleman has fulfilled his rôle. In West Germany there was no difficulty at all as a result of what I had said. If the hon. Gentleman had read all that I had said instead of what he was fed, three words taken out of context, he would understand that.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to stop German nationalist feeling rising as it did in the 'thirties would be to bring back foreign troops from German soil?

Mr. Brown: I do not believe that I accept that at all. One of the reasons, in my view, why we have had a longer period of more stable peace after the Second World War than we had after the first is that other countries are now deeply concerned with the stability of the Continent, and I think that we should be awfully silly to throw it away.

Orders of the Day — ROAD SAFETY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause NO. 1.—(DETENTION OF PERSONS WHILE AFFECTED BY ALCOHOL.)

Any person required to provide a specimen for a laboratory test under section 3(1) of this Act may thereafter be detained at the police station until he provides a specimen of breath for a breath test and it appears to a constable that the device by means of which the test is carried out indicates that the proportion of alcohol in that person's blood does not exceed the prescribed limit.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.48 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The reason for the new Clause lies in a point made in Committee by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). He asked:
Can we be absolutely sure that, in all circumstances, a man who is unfit to drive, or even on the brink of being unfit to drive, will not be allowed to drive away?"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th December, 1966; c. 219.]
There has been in the past at least one case which occasioned considerable public anxiety because of a failure to detain someone at a police station who proved unfit to drive away.
The new Clause is introduced to provide a specific power in the Bill to enable the police to detain drivers at the police station who would otherwise drive away when it might be unsafe for them to do so. The only provision in the Bill as it stands touching on this point is paragraph 1 of the First Schedule, which will become redundant and will be deleted by the consequential Amendment connected with the new Clause. That paragraph adapts Section 38(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to the case of a person arrested under Clause 2(4), and enables the police to release that person on bail pending completion of the inquiry into the case. In practice, this power enables the police to detain a person only while arrangements are

being made for his release: it does not permit them to detain him as long as he is unfit to drive.
A further limitation is that the power applies only to a person arrested under Clause 2(4), not to a person arrested under Clause 2(5) for failing to do a breath test. That was a point which the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) made in Committee. This is because in the former case evidence is provided by a positive breath test of the likelihood of an offence under Clause 1 having been committed, and therefore the case can be dealt with under the procedure of Section 38(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. However, cases of arrest under Clause 2(5) cannot be dealt within that way: at that time there is not yet evidence of an offence.
Obviously this is an important point. Obviously it is desirable that there should be no doubt whatsoever whether the police have power to stop someone from driving who is not yet fit to drive. In view of the concern which was rightly felt, in view of the very good point made by the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the limitations on the present power, and also as the persons concerned will not yet be charged with an offence while their specimen is being analysed, we have decided to take an express discretionary power as provided for in the Clause.
In practice the police may not need to use this power very often, because frequently in these cases someone else will be able to drive the person home or arrangements can be made for the person to be driven home. There is no intention whatsoever of disturbing such arrangements, and that is why the power to detain is discretionary. But if such arrangements cannot be made the police will not be able to detain a person until a breath test indicates that his blood-alcohol level is below the prescribed limit. This may well mean that in such a case a person will have to take more than one breath test before he is fit to be released. However, the police must have some way of knowing that they will be safe to allow him to drive home again.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I want immediately to express my appreciation of the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government have responded to the suggestion we made in


Committee that some such provision should be included in the Bill.
The first point which occurs to me—I am sure that the Under-Secretary would not under-rate this—is the very heavy responsibilities which will now be imposed on the police. I am sure that this is right. It is inevitable. What appears to be a very satisfactory way of meeting the point in the Bill takes no account of what will happen when an individual has been detained, when the police deem him unfit to return home in his own car, and find it necessary, under the provisions of the Clause, to detain him.
I should like to know what the Home Office has in mind as to how this provision will be implemented. For example, is it envisaged that the individual may on occasion have to be detained in a cell? Where in a police station will he be called upon to wait? Is it envisaged that the surgeon, or whoever has been called to make the original test, must remain to make a second test after the appropriate time has elapsed? Finally, if the individual concerned sends, as he may well do, for a legal adviser or for his own doctor, is it envisaged how the situation may then develop where it will be the police discretion under the powers in the Bill versus the individual who may consider that he is being wrongfully detained?
I dwell on these administrative details because, although this power is essential, I think that on the occasion when it has to be used the police will find themselves in difficulty. I want to know whether the Home Office has thought this through and whether it will be offering the police some guidance as to precisely how these powers will be implemented. Apart from that, I have nothing but congratulation for the Government on the inclusion of this provision, which I am sure will be found necessary.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like the Under-Secretary, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for raising this matter in particular. The House will he especially grateful that the Under-Secretary has had second thoughts and has not stuck to the words he used in Committee—that he hoped to satisfy hon. Members that

this matter was adequately covered by the Bill as it then stood.
Clearly, there was a fundamental gap, in that the Bill as it stood gave, as I could see and as my hon. Friends could see, no possible powers for the police to detain in the police station people whom they had taken in on suspicion of having committed an offence under the Bill. The whole House would agree that it would be disastrous if people were to be taken to a police station under suspicion of having committed an offence under the Bill, for a blood test then to be taken, and their then being allowed to walk out of the police station again and perhaps drive away and, as has happened, be involved in further accidents on the way back. The whole power of arrest that there was under the 1962 Act disappears, since now the charge will not be made at the time, as I understand it, but will be dependent upon the outcome of the blood test and any eventual proceedings will be taken by summons.
In Committee the Under-Secretary said that if a driver was willing to hand over the keys of his car, he would, he assumed, be allowed to go home. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say
… in most cases one would expect the motorist to co-operate, and, being offered a lift home in a police car, to accept it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 6th December, 1966; c. 225.]
May we take it that the proposal that the Under-Secretary was there making, that the police will, where possible, make arrangements for those who have been charged with this offence to be allowed to leave the police station and go home, provided that it is known that they will not be driving their own cars, will still apply and that a person will be detained under the powers granted in the Clause only if he is not prepared to give the necessary assurance and make the necessary arrangements to ensure that he can get home other than by driving his own car?
I believe that in practice, if the use of the Clause to detain people in police stations is used by the police unnecessarily and if they do not try to arrange with a co-operative suspect that he adopts other means of getting home, it could lead to a deterioration of relationships between the police and the public.


Subject to that, I think that the Clause is wholly admirable. I believe that it closes a gap which clearly existed in the Bill. I am delighted that the Government have decided to bring in the Clause.

Mr. Taverne: Of course the position will be that, if the person concerned gives an assurance that his wife will be driving and satisfies the police on that score, or if he accepts a lift in a police car, he will not be detained in the police station. The police do not wish to detain people there if they can possibly avoid it. In most cases they will be able to avoid it.
I cannot dogmatise as to the place where a person would be kept if detained. It would depend very much on the driver's condition. If someone were obstreperous, he would have to be detained in a cell. In other cases—for example, if a police car was not available to take him home at that stage, or if he had no one with him who could drive his car instead of his driving it—it might be that he would be asked to stay at the police station.
I do not see any reason why the surgeon should be kept. After all, the simple question will be this. Either the police will make alternative arrangements or they will keep the person there until they are satisfied from the breath test that his blood-alcohol is below the prescribed level. I do not see any reason for the surgeon to be there at all. Nor, for that matter, do I see any reason why the legal adviser should stay. Some of the difficulties that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) foresaw are not perhaps as great as he imagined.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2.—(LOAD-MEASURING DEVICE.)

On and after 1st January 1968 it shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20 to drive or to cause to be driven on a road a laden heavy goods vehicle which is not carrying portable vehicle scales capable of measuring the laden weight of the vehicle; unless there is incorporated into the structure of the vehicle a device for measuring the load of the vehicle. —[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time new Clause No. 3, "Knowledge of weight and type of load"—
It shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £50 to drive a goods vehicle without knowing the maximum laden weight thereof (as prescribed by statute or regulations authorised by statute), the laden weight at the time of so driving the vehicle, the kind of goods or substances being carried by the vehicle and, if they are dangerous goods or substances, the appropriate security, safety and precautionary measures to be taken to prevent damage therefrom to person or property.

Mr. Page: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker; it will be very convenient to take the two together.
New Clause No. 2 is designed to make it necessary to carry a means of measuring the weight of the load on a heavy goods vehicle, and new Clause No. 3 is, as it were, supplemental in that it would make it necessary for the driver to know what he was carrying and how to deal with his load in emergencies.
For too long we have treated road accidents in a rather fatalistic way. It is said that there are bound to be accidents in this modern age of high speed and travel by motor vehicle. We must expect accidents, it is said, and although we should try to keep the number down, so many are due just to simple understandable human error, the sort of error we all make, and no one should pretend that we are able to do very much about it.
That may be a commendably realistic view—it is not one which I take—when one is considering the immediate cause of an accident, but the Bill, if I understand the Minister's intention aright, is intended to go further back in time than the immediate cause of an accident. For example, it deals with the overloaded lorries which cause accidents. The immediate cause of such accidents may be defective brakes, but the real cause is overloading of the lorries when they started.
Part I of the Bill deals with earlier conduct on the part of a driver which might prevent his getting into the position of having an accident. If he is


overloaded with drink, he will, in all probability, make a mistake in driving and have an accident. Part II deals with earlier conduct in relation to vehicles which may prevent an accident. If a vehicle is overloaded, its brakes may fail. It is in these cases important to see what can be done before the driving starts or before the vehicle goes on to the road, and it is here that legislation can be most effective. It is not easy to legislate effectively against human error in the act of driving, but it is not difficult to produce effective legislation for proper preparation for the act of driving, preparation both in the condition of the vehicle and in the condition of the driver.
I recall that when I used to teach flying during the war we would never think of going into the air without first going through the drill before we took off. This was, perhaps, a formal drill, but it called to mind everything that was necessary in the aircraft before one took it into the air. We should try to do the same in the case of the motor vehicle, and Part II of the Bill generally is designed to this end. These new Clauses are intended to supplement the present provisions in Part II.
Part II provides, in particular, for the weight which a vehicle is permitted to carry to be marked on a plate on the vehicle itself. If such weight is exceeded, an offence is committed. I ask the House to consider the practical aspect of this. It is all very well to mark on the vehicle the weight which it is intended to carry, but let us think of the lorry driver who is told by his employer, "Take that load out; it is already on the lorry", or "Go and pick up such and such a load at such and such a place". There may be no weighbridge available or anywhere near for the driver to judge the amount he is loading on his lorry or that is already loaded on, no matter that he can see on the plate the permissible amount of load. How is he to know whether he is overloaded or not?
We can make certain by legislation that he has at least the means of knowing the load on his vehicle. Given that situation, I think it fair to force him to find out, under threat of penalty if he does not take the simple precaution of knowing the load he has, and under threat of penalty to his employer also for leaving the driver in ignorance, if he does

so leave him, by not providing the means for the driver to know the weight on his vehicle.
There is available a device which can be built into a lorry to show the weight of the load on the lorry. I have given the Under-Secretary of State particulars of that device. I cannot say of my own knowledge—I am no engineer—whether it is foolproof, but I wonder whether the speedometer, for example, was foolproof in 1933 when we made it compulsory to have speedometers on cars. We should not be deterred by the fact that some of these mechanical devices which can undoubtedly contribute to road safety may not be in perfect orders as yet. I have made provision for this by saying that the Clause should not come into operation until 1st January, 1968. But there is this device which can be fitted to a heavy goods vehicle to weigh the load on the vehicle, and it is claimed that it is efficient and accurate.
Apart from that, there is a simple portable device for weighing the whole lorry. It is a simple little weighing machine only a few inches high, and one simply drives the lorry on to it. It would be perfectly easy to carry this on the vehicle so that the driver could always test the weight. It would then be the weight of vehicle and load, of course, but he would know the weight of his vehicle unladen and would thus know the weight of the load. This instrument, the portable scale, is claimed to be accurate to better than 2 per cent. and it is a simple device which it would be very easy to carry with the lorry and use.
We make coal carts carry scales for the protection of the customer against short weight. It is far more important, is it not, to make lorries carry scales for protection against short life? It is from overladen lorries that we have so many deaths on the road. The importance of the weight factor in driving a goods vehicle is shown all through Part II of the Bill, and it is shown also by the statistics of road offences. I quote here from the Report, Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, 1965. Under the item "Causing, etc. danger by reason of load", one reads that there were 5,752 findings of guilt in the year 1965. For exceeding the weight limit specified for road or bridge there were another 333 findings of guilt. In the case of dangerous loads


by reason of weight, the courts thought that the offences were so serious in certain cases as to disqualify altogether in ten and to require an endorsement in nearly 1,000 of the others.
In some of the most tragic cases of fatal accidents resulting from overladen lorries the driver has said in a prosecution or inquest afterwards that he did not know that his lorry was overloaded. That problem is closely connected with brake efficiency, because even with the permissible load on a heavy goods vehicle the required brake efficiency is, in my submission, very low at present. Not until 1968 is it planned to require a 50 per cent. braking efficiency of main braking systems for new lorries, and the requirement will be only a 45 per cent. braking efficiency for existing lorries.
It is, therefore, essential that we make every effort now to see that the loading limits are obeyed. Too many times we read in reports of accidents, prosecutions and inquests that the lorry was overloaded, and that the driver said that he did not know that it was. I gave many examples in Committee, and I shall not weary the House with a large number of them now. I wish to quote only one case, because it happened near my home on Highgate Hill. A lorry was sent out to load on a demolition site. The driver had not the slightest idea what load he had put on the lorry, and as it went down Highgate Hill the brakes failed. At the Archway junction it ran into a bank on the corner, carrying with it two pedestrians, who were killed.
That was a typical example of a driver being sent out to load his lorry and, because there was no weighbridge and no other means of measurement, not being able to tell what load he was carrying. The new Clause would ensure to a driver the means by which he would know the weight of his lorry and the weight of his load, and his employer would be able to provide that means.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I doubt whether many of us would need much convincing of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Certainly I do not. But I would like him to go back a little and tell us whether the weighing instrument to which he referred is capable of weighing say, up to 8 tons an axle and whether

it could be adapted to a tipping vehicle as well as flat, rigid vehicles. Could he also tell us what the price of such an instrument might be?

Mr. Page: I shall let the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) have a brochure on the instrument. It will take up to the weight he mentioned —the scale capacity is 20,000 lb. It is a small instrument; its overall length is 20½ in. and it stands only a few inches high, so that the wheel of the lorry can be driven on to it. Its accuracy is claimed as better than 2 per cent.
The brochure does not give the instrument's price, probably because it is not sufficiently mass-produced at present, but it looks to me such a simple little instrument that its cost cannot be great. At any rate, it should be investigated by the Government with great care to see whether it is a form of instrument that will weigh goods vehicles effectively. I have no reason to believe that the claims made for it are false. It seems to have been well tested, and I believe that it is sufficiently accurate for us to legislate with it, or a similar instrument, in view.
4.15 p.m.
I have so far dealt with the weight and overloading of a lorry, which relates to new Clause 2 and the first part of new Clause 3. The second half of new Clause 3 deals with the driver's knowing what he is carrying and how to prevent its becoming dangerous; in short, what to do with a dangerous load in emergency. I saw a report in the newspapers only the other day of a lorry which called at a house to fill the domestic heating system with paraffin. Because the lorry driver did not know what he had in his tank, he filled the system with petrol. Fortunately, the good lady of the house detected the difference in smell, and had she not turned off the system the whole house would have exploded in three or four more minutes.
That is an example of a lorry driver being sent out without knowing what his load was. There is also the famous example I quoted at length in Committee, the Ashby Parva case of the drums of potassium cyanide while fell off a lorry and were enough to blow up the village. Their contents spilled out and were hosed into the drains. They


poisoned the water courses and caused great danger to the inhabitants in that village. The driver had no idea of the subsance he was carrying and he parked his lorry with the other drums a little way down the road, and left it there overnight untended.
The regulations merely require that for certain dangerous loads the vehicles shall be marked, not with the nature of the load, but with the words "highly inflamable". Therefore, there are at present being driven through built-up areas loads like liquid ethylene, which gives off a poisonous gas at low temperatures; hydrogen peroxide, which can explode and catch fire if the vehicle leaks; liquid sodium. which explodes when in contact with water; and propane, which is a heavier-than-air gas and which if it escapes from a vehicle which crashes or overturns, can get down into drains and poison the watercourses of a town.
We let drivers go on to the roads, through crowded, built-up areas, without their knowing what they are carrying and without their knowing how to deal with it if they crash their vehicles. I cannot help feeling that it is a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Government and of Parliament to allow that danger in our towns to continue.
There was an example of the danger recently in Poole where the driver smelt some strange gas coming from his vehicle. He stopped and telephoned his employers to ask them what he was carrying. He had not a clue. The employers told him to leave his lorry and go straight to hospital. He did. He left it in the road leaking the poisonous gas, and the police had to get it off the road and into safety. That is the sort of thing which happens when a man does not know what load he is carrying. I could give many other examples, but I do not wish to weary the House.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are with me in feeling that we should do all we can to ensure that a driver knows how to deal with dangerous loads. If it is thought too harsh to make the driver responsible, I would hope that in every case in which a driver goes out on to the road without knowing what his load is his employer would also be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the

offence. This is where the blame should lie.
Part II of the Bill is too full of paper —certificates, licences, and so on—and not enough practical application to the driver of the vehicle. It does not get down to the facts of the case. It is too full of inspections off the road without getting at the driver when he is on the road. A driver's ignorance in cases such as those I have described may be lethal. The Clauses would make that ignorance illegal.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: The House always listens with great care and interest to the observations which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) makes on matters of this kind. We have a great deal of respect for his views. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), I am a little concerned about the intention of new Clause No. 2. I do not find much to debate on new Clause No. 3.
I think that the House is entitled to hear far more from the hon. Gentleman about the weighing device which he suggests should be compulsorily carried on vehicles before it agrees to the new Clause. In my time here, the House has always been careful to try to avoid enacting law which may be unenforceable or difficult of enforcement. If this device is satisfactory, one would wish to support the new Clause and insist on its being carried on vehicles.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to give us far more detailed advice about this weighing instrument. What weight and size of lorry would it weigh? I heard only yesterday—and this is what puts the doubt in my mind—of a vehicle on the road between Newport and the new Severn Bridge which, I was advised, was even longer and wider than those vehicles which are marked as being 60 ft. in length. How will this device weigh a vehicle, or the load which it is carrying of such proportions?
I wish to support the new Clause if it can be shown to be logical and if, having become law, it would be enforceable. However, I do not think that we have had nearly enough information on the matter unless my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport knows something about it and can reassure the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I support the new Clause, which is of wider application than might appear at first sight.
The West Country is not a mountainous area to the same extent as, say, Wales or Scotland, but in both Devon and Cornwall we have many hills and roads with fairly steep gradients, though often over a short distance. One of the most common forms of accident concerns the lorry whose brakes fail on a hill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out that a driver might be totally unaware that his lorry was overloaded. If he were told to drive a lorry which was already loaded one would suppose that the owner who handed it over to him knew, or should have known, what weight was on the lorry. But there may be circumstances in which the owner is not aware of the weight on the lorry. If he sends a lorry to pick up a load and he is told over the telephone that it will be of a certain weight, when the driver arrives at the place where the load is to be picked up he may find that it is more substantial than he was given to understand. He will have no knowledge whether the lorry is overloaded. In taking the load to its destination, he might be involved in an accident for reasons which have nothing to do with him because he did not know that the lorry was overloaded and had no reason to suppose that his brakes would fail. Accidents of this sort happen much more commonly than people suppose. Representing, as I do, a hilly district, I believe that this matter should be considered seriously.
I have no practical experience of the instrument to which my hon. Friend referred, but I am assured that it is a reasonable weighing device which can be fitted to lorries and that it is not unduly expensive. No doubt the Minister will have looked into that matter and can advise us on it.
On new Clause 3, I believe that the many cases to which my hon. Friend referred are also much more common than is sometimes supposed. We read reports in the Press from time to time of noxious substances which have been washed into drains owing to the ignorance of the substance concerned among people deal-

ing with a road accident. This sort of thing happens a great deal more than people suppose, because it may not produce fatal or noticeable results. At the same time, it may be very dangerous, because it is possible to wash into drains a substance which produces a poison or gas without anybody noticing it. The suggested provision that a driver should know what load his lorry is carrying and what precautions should be taken if there is an accident is necessary, and it should be further investigated.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Assuming that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport accepts them, the two new Clauses would considerably strengthen the Bill.
The most important aspect of Part II of the Bill is that it should be effective in preventing accidents. The need to provide some means of enabling the driver of a vehicle to know the weight of his laden vehicle before he starts on his journey does not require any emphasis from me. I believe that every right hon. and hon. Member is convinced about that. I am a little concerned that the suggested penalty for failure to know is so small. I should have thought that an offence of this nature warranted a much greater penalty than £20. I do not put it past certain unscrupulous owners of vehicles to ignore the law if they think that they will get away as lightly as this.
I hope that acceptance of new Clause No. 2 would not reduce in any way the Government's responsibility to provide adequate weighbridges at strategic points along all major highways. This practice has been adopted in Canada and it has deterred drivers and goods vehicle owners from exceeding the statutory limits placed on their vehicles. It is very effective and it should be speedily copied in this country. From personal experience there, I know how careful the owners of goods vehicles are in ensuring that their vehicles are not overladen before they commence their journey, because they know perfectly well that their lorries are likely, without notice, to be taken off the road and put on a weighbridge and that they would be subject to the most severe penalties.
However, I realise that the provision of an adequate number of weighbridges in this country would be very expensive.


The devices suggested by the hon. Member for Crosby are not the only devices available. I have seen alternative devices in operation in, for example, the United States. I can set at ease the mind of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) on this matter. Effective portable devices are available which, I am certain, could be manufactured at a price certainly within the £20 range and would meet the need, at least temporarily.
4.30 p.m.
I regard new Clause No. 3 as very important and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have no hesitation in accepting it. The importance of the last part of it was illustrated to me vividly only two or three hours ago. At lunch time, I was coming out of my office in Pall Mall and I saw a petrol lorry unloading. As it was unloading, it was leaking so badly that the driver had placed a can underneath the pipe to catch the liquid as it fell to the ground. The can was already overflowing, so a stream of petrol was running across the pavement. That is a most serious offence. It needed only somebody to light a cigarette and throw down a match and the result would have been a grave disaster. It is this kind of thing which sets at risk the lives and safety of people who are in no way associated with the vehicle or its driver or owner. Proper statutory precautions must be taken to prevent this kind of thing happening.
I have some reservations about new Clause No. 2, although I think that it should be supported. I have none whatever about new Clause No. 3 and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate his readiness to accept it.

Mr. Mapp: I want to rescue the substance of the two new Clauses before my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary cuts off their heads as I have a feeling, although without knowledge, that that will be the probable result. I want to point to some substance in the Clauses and also to some weaknesses.
I have had the opportunity of looking at the literature concerning the weighing device in question. Railway companies, with whom I used to be familiar, looked in vain for a cheap and efficient form of either an axle-weighing or a separate wheel-weighing device to obviate the terrific costs attendant upon weighing

machines. Those machines are very costly and anything that we can do to lighten the cost should be done.
It is clear to me, after having seen the literature about the device in question, that it originates from a very enterprising firm, not within Britain. No price is mentioned and I could have some reservations about its effectiveness. One has to think of a scrap metal merchant's yard or a building site, where the biggest offenders are likely to arise. The man who moves approved types of traffic with which he is normally familiar can guess to within 1 per cent. the weight of what he is carrying.
In my opinion, what is wrong with new Clause No. 2 is mainly the date of 1st January, 1968, plus its reference to the structure of the vehicle. If the new Clause were to say that at an appropriate time, which I would contemplate as being within two or three years, it should be a "must" to have a weighing device of some kind on a vehicle which is likely to be loaded with irregular weights and types of traffic, I would agree completely with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I hope that my hon. Friend, in dismissing, as he probably will, the precise form of the Clause, will bear in mind that if he is not prepared to consider this matter of principle during the passage of the Bill, within two or three years it will be something upon which the House will insist.
New Clause No. 3 attempts to tell the driver of a vehicle that he must be as good as a fireman in dealing with the consequences of a dangerous form of traffic which he may be carrying. From experience of people who consistently handle or are likely to handle dangerous traffic day by day, I know that the secret is not that the people who handle the traffic must know from A to Z what must be done should something happen, but that the traffic should carry a type of identity label.
I quote again the precedent of the railway companies. They used nine or ten separate identifiable labels giving in code on the label the kind of simple directions which must be followed when immediate action was necessary before calling for specialist advice. I would not impose upon the driver of a vehicle the need to possess the know-how of a fireman, but


he should have with him on the goods and on the vehicle when fully loaded documentary advice giving full and proper guidance to those who might be called upon to deal with any difficulty which might arise.
There might be something wrong technically with the new Clauses, but they suggest improvements which must come in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will bear this in mind in dealing with them.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I hope that I can deal with reasonable brevity with the substantial points which have been raised on new Clauses 2 and 3. I greatly admire the persistence of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), and I do not underestimate his ingenuity in raising in a new form arguments that were dealt with in an old form at an earlier stage of the Bill.
In Committee, the hon. Member attempted to amend the Bill by seeking to give my right hon. Friend the Minister power to prescribe the installation of built-in weight-measuring instruments. We discussed that at length. I hope that in correspondence I managed to satisfy the hon. Member about it. I would like to put this clearly on record. I wrote to the hon. Member on 16th January in pursuit of my assurance and I stated as follows:
There is no restriction on the powers in Section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. and they are wide enough to require the fitting of such apparatus if and when it becomes available.
I stated that in relation to the hon. Member's then proposal that we should make it obligatory for weight-measuring instruments to be incorporated on road vehicles. The hon. Member will accept that such instruments for vehicles are at present in an experimental stage.
In putting forward new Clause No. 2, the hon. Member seeks to make it an offence not to carry on a vehicle a portable weighing device unless a satisfactory measuring instrument is already incorporated in the structure of the vehicle. Whilst my right hon. Friend already has power to make this obligatory and could make a regulation under the appropriate

section of the 1960 Act, I am advised technically that portable devices which have been brought to our attention are not regarded as sufficiently accurate and reliable for us at present to reach the conclusion that we should make it obligatory for them to be carried.
The House will appreciate that that is the result of the best technical advice and of tests which have been applied to these portable devices. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I am clearly not opposing the proposal in principle any more than at a previous stage I opposed in principle the suggestion that we might come to the compulsory incorporation of weight-measuring instruments in the structure of vehicles. It will be appreciated that, if we are technically advised that there is not a portable device available of whose complete accuracy we can be assured, it would be wrong at this stage either to incorporate this measure in the Bill or for my right hon. Friend to make regulations on the subject.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Road Research Laboratory has tested these instruments and, if so, when the tests were made? In addition, is he prepared to make available to the House some report on those tests?

Mr. Swingler: Our engineers are making tests on the devices to which our attention has been drawn, and the Road Research Laboratory has this matter of overloading under study, anyway. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will consider the possibility of putting a report before the House, and I assure him, further, that we are quite prepared to discuss with other technical experts all aspects of such portable devices to see whether jointly we can find the solution, which is to get a device of sufficient reliability to make it possible to accept a proposal of this kind, which could then he carried into law by means of regulations under the Road Traffic Act.

Mr. Bessell: From the whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I have the feeling that he is thoroughly sympathetic to this idea, but the difficulty is a technical one. If an instrument can be perfected to the satisfaction of the Road Research Laboratory, will his right hon. Friend make such an Order?

Mr. Swingler: If we can find an instrument which is completely reliable and accurate and, at the same time, if it is not going to impose an intolerable burden financially, yes. The matter of the cost has been raised, and it is one about which we should have to have consultation with the trade, because it would place an additional burden on the owners of vehicles. My right hon. Friend is sympathetic towards this. It might be a useful safety device, and we should be glad to find a technical solution to what is at the moment a technical problem.
I turn now to new Clause 3. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend that the maximum permissible weight which a vehicle may carry under the Construction and Use Regulations shall be marked on the vehicle where such maximum permissible weight is less than the weight at which the vehicle is designed to operate. One of the important features of Part II of the Bill is that it shall be marked on the vehicle and known at all times to the user of the vehicle.
Again, I am completely sympathetic to the objectives which hon. Gentlemen have in mind, but there are certain difficulties about it which are not trivial. For one thing, there is the difficulty that in the Bill we provide for a circumstance where clearly the driver of the vehicle does not know the actual laden weight. In Clause 23(4,a) we provide for the driver of a vehicle to drive his vehicle deliberately to the nearest weighbridge to find out what the actual laden weight is because it is not known. Secondly, we have the fact drawn to our attention that, in addition to the load that is on the vehicle, the actual weight can be increased by the accumulation of slush, snow and so on. That might seem to some to be a trivial point, but, if we provide in law that the driver of a vehicle must know the laden weight accurately, it is clear that a driver could be faulted owing to an accumulation of rain, mud or slush, where the actual weight of the vehicle and its load had changed in the course of being driven.
4.45 p.m.
In the case quoted by the hon. Member for Crosby about a driver apparently being in ignorance of his load, we have investigated, and I am informed that when the error occurred, the driver knew

that he was carrying both petrol and heating oil in different compartments of the vehicle. The outlets were marked accordingly. The circumstances which occurred were the result of human error, where the driver coupled up the wrong compartment of his tanker to the lady's oil storage tank. But it has been established that the error was not due to the driver being ignorant of the nature of the loads which he was carrying.
However, as was said in Committee, we are seized of the importance of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and that is why draft regulations are now under consideration. As my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department said previously, the Home Office is now considering draft regulations providing for the appropriate marking of all vehicles carrying inflammable liquids above certain minimum quantities. Similar provisions for other classes of dangerous goods are contemplated. Such marking would make it unnecessary to impose upon the driver any obligation to ascertain the nature of the goods, because they would be marked clearly on the vehicle.
Likewise, according to her responsibilities, my right hon. Friend is about to put to the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee draft regulations and an explanatory code of practice of the subjects. Those will deal with all aspects of the safe carriage of radioactive materials, including the obligations of drivers and the clear labelling of vehicles in the particular cases.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, under the appropriate Acts regarding the carriage of different kinds of dangerous goods, the drafting of new regulations is urgently proceeding, and they will be put before the House by my right hon. Friend. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that we shall ensure that the type of load in these dangerous cases will be clearly marked on the vehicle, though I feel bound to say that none of these regulations will, in my view, detract from the moral responsibility on any employer to ensure that his driver is fully informed of the kind of load that he is carrying if there is any danger to the public.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am sure that the House will be glad to hear about the draft Regulations which the Home Office intends to bring into operation. They owe a great deal to the campaign which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has been conducting.
Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling a little disappointed by the somewhat negative approach of the hon. Gentleman. We all recognise that his heart is in the right place, and most hon. Members want to see something done. The hon. Gentleman explained to us in Committee that it was difficult to have an instrument actually incorporated into the vehicle. When my hon. Friend produces another instrument which does not need to be incorporated into the vehicle, the hon. Gentleman still says that it is not good enough. One has to make a beginning somewhere.
My hon. Friend referred to speedometers, which probably were not very accurate when they were first introduced. It seems to me that if we are going to wait until we get something that is 100 per cent. accurate we will never do the thing at all.
In Committee the hon. Gentleman said that what was needed was something to spur industry on to provide devices of this sort for weighing lorries. I cannot think of anything more likely to spur industry on than a much more robust and constructive speech than that which the hon. Gentleman made. Industry will just sit back. It will not do anything after hearing what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. The hon. Gentleman is seeing all the difficulties. We recognise that there are difficulties, but what we would like to see is something more constructive.
I do not think that we should go as far as suggested by my hon. Friend. The date suggested by him may be a little too soon, but, if we were to suggest a date two or three years from now, it would be a spur to industry, and I would very much like to have heard a more constructive and aggressive reply from the hon. Gentleman to indicate that he and the Ministry intend to put down some date which would act as a spur to industry so that we could get, either incor-

porated into the lorries, or available to be used outside them, a device which would let people who were driving the lorries know the weight of the contents of them.

Mr. Graham Page: I must be grateful for the sympathy which I have received for the principle of my suggestion. It is my recollection that it is 10 years since I first endeavoured to introduce legislation into this House for Part I of the Bill. I hope that it will not take another 10 years for legislation to be introduced to provide for these two new Clauses. Under the circumstances, in the hope that we shall get some provision soon about this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion, and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 1.—(DRIVING OR BEING IN CHARGE WITH BLOOD-ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 1, line 9, after 'alcohol', to insert 'or having taken a drug'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if with that Amendment we discussed the following: Amendment No. 40, in page 2, line 3, after 'alcohol', insert:
'or having taken a drug'.

Amendment No. 41, in page 2, line 13, after 'alcohol', insert 'or a drug'.

Amendment No. 42, in Clause 6, page 8, line 1, after 'means', insert:
'in relation to alcohol'.

Amendment No. 43, in page 8, line 4, at end insert:
'and in relation to drugs such proportion as may be prescribed by regulations as aforesaid in respect of any drug specified in the said regulations'.

Mr. Page: I am obliged to you for saying that we may discuss these Amendments together.
This group of Amendments is intended to apply a standard to driving when a person's skill is impaired by drugs in the same way as the Bill applies a standard to driving when a person's skill is impaired by alcohol. In the Bill we have accepted the principle that the danger


from driving when a person has been drinking alcohol can be measured by the quantity of alcohol in the blood, and therefore the quantity of alcohol in the driver.
The Long Title to the Bill deals with driving after consuming drugs. It says:
To make further provision with respect to persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol or taking drugs …",
but nowhere in the Bill can I discover any provisions relating to the driving of motor vehicles after consuming drugs. This would be introduced into the Bill if the Amendments were accepted.
Section 6 of the 1960 Road Traffic Act says:
A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs …
That was amended by the Road Traffic Act, 1962, when the phrase
unfit to drive through drink or drugs
was defined as meaning that a person's driving ability was thereby impaired. The important point to which I draw attention is that Clause 2(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962 said:
… the court shall … have regard to any evidence which may be given of the proportion or quantity of alcohol or of any drug which was contained in the blood or present in the body of the accused, as ascertained by analysis or measurement of a specimen of blood taken from him with his consent by a medical practitioner, or of urine or breath provided by him, at any material time …
I stress the words "or of any drug". It seems from that that at the time the House passed the Road Traffic Act, 1962, it must have been satisfied that the quantity of drugs in a person's body could be measured otherwise, so far as it refers to drugs, Section 2(1) of that Act is meaningless. It seems, therefore, that Parliament was satisfied at that time that from a specimen of blood or urine an authorised analyst could certify the proportion of drugs in the specimen, and therefore the proportion of drugs in the person's body.
Under those circumstances, it seems that we ought to give the right hon. Lady the Minister a power under this Bill to prescribe a limit for any particular drug. I appreciate that for different drugs the prescribed limit may have to

be a different figure. There may have to be a different formula and a different calculation, but the Minister should now take power to prescribe a limit in connection with drugs in the same way as she is taking power by the Bill to prescribe a limit for alcohol in the accused's body.
Scarcely two years ago the Ministry was saying that one could not satisfactorily measure alcohol in the blood to make it an offence to have so much alcohol above a prescribed limit, but now, in this Bill, the principle has been recognised. In a very short period of time medical science has become so much more accurate that it is possible to legislate in that respect. Between the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1962 and this year, progress in ascertaining the proportion of alcohol in the blood which would be likely so to impair driving that its existence ought to be made a crime has made it possible to have Part I of the Bill.
As far as I know, no publicity has been given to any research into the proportion of particular drugs which would similarly be likely to impair driving. I do not think that the assertion that drugs affect different people in different ways is an excuse for not setting a standard in relation to drugs as we are setting in relation to alcohol.
We know that alcohol has a similar variety of effects on different people, but we are in the Bill accepting a standard which we believe to be fair to those who may be able to "carry their drinks better than others". We have accepted this principle with regard to alcohol, and in these Amendments I am asking that we should accept the same sort of principle with regard to drugs.
5.0 p.m.
Until comparatively recently, it was thought that driving with one's skill impaired by drugs was a remote offence, something unusual. But, only a short while ago, the House debated the effect of drugs on society and I am sure that many of us were shocked at the facts then revealed. As a result, we feel that accidents caused by those who drive under the influence of drugs are not so remote as we might have thought. I believe that a substantial number of accidents is caused by those whose driving is impaired by drugs.


It may be a very long time before we have another Road Safety Bill—a long time in terms of the progress of medical knowledge, which happens very quickly. Before then, we may know very much more about drugs and accidents, drugs and driving, and the measurement of drugs in the body.
This is an opportunity which the right hon. Lady should not miss, to put powers in the Bill to set that standard, when she feels that medical knowledge has progressed far enough to tell her that, if there is x amount of any drug in a driver's body, it is so dangerous for him to drive that he ought to be held to be committing an offence. This principle is accepted in the Bill for alcohol: let us accept it also for drugs, which are becoming such a serious menace.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I support my hon. Friend's Amendment and share his surprise that, although drugs are mentioned in the Long Title, there is practically nothing about them in the rest of the Bill. I reinforce his point. The question of drugs is very topical. Until little time ago, when we talked of drugs we were thinking of the killer and habit-forming drugs which were not, perhaps, in common use and still, fortunately, are little used. However, there are many other drugs which are greatly used and which, if taken in any quantities and sometimes in conjunction with alcohol, can be very dangerous—pep pills and the like.
There may be difficulties in ascertaining what quantities have been taken. If that be so, it is high time that those doing research looked into the matter to see whether they can devise some way of measuring the effect. It is having an effect on some people which can be highly dangerous, especially when taken with alcohol. When some means of measuring has been found, the right hon. Lady ought to have powers in reserve so that she can make the necessary Regulations.

Mr. Bessell: Although I am in complete sympathy with all the sentiments of the hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), I have some difficulty over the Amendment. The words are "… of having taken a drug". What does that mean? For example, a person suffering

a severe pain, perhaps a headache, may take three or four aspirin, which would constitute "taking a drug". There are certain tranquillisers which are very effective and of which about 900 million are sold in this country each year. Is it suggested that these—which are certainly drugs—should create an offence if taken in a certain quantity by a person who then drives?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member will see further down the words "… exceeds the prescribed limit". There would naturally have to be a limit.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I see the point about the prescribed limit and was going on to say that Amendment No. 43 meets the case much better. At least it gives the Minister the right to take this power if and when it can be shown that drugs of various types and in various quantities are dangerous.
The intention behind Amendment No. 39 is excellent, but I have doubts about its administrative possibilities. Amendment No. 43 has a point which should be seriously considered, as this is an opportunity for the Minister to take powers which are necessary in the light of the numbers of dangerous drugs being taken, particularly, by young people, and which, as the hon. Member for Truro said, can be very dangerous, in conjunction with alcohol.

Mr. Deedes: I strongly support the idea of the Amendment, though there may be difficulties, about which I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us, which will preclude it from having the effect for which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) hopes. He is right to say that, in logic, as the Long Title refers to drink and drugs, both should be taken into account. Our legislation on these lines does take the two in partnership. It is well known that the admixture of drugs to alcohol— or the other way around—can be very dangerous in certain circumstances.
One point ought to be stressed. Whether or not we can achieve what my hon. Friend wants, we ought not to underrate the size of this problem. In a country where, in the last year—according to figures given to the House the other day —6 million prescriptions for barbiturates can be issued in six months and 3 million


for amphetamines in one year, nobody can doubt that a large number of people who drive must be mixing both with alcohol; and both mixed with alcohol constitute a serious danger to health and driving.
On practicability, my hon. Friend thought that we should add a limit in respect of drugs as we have done in respect of alcohol. There are certain drugs, I think, which can be quantitatively and qualitatively measured, either in the blood or the urine, but unfortunately neither amphetamines nor barbiturates are among them, and these are the two principal drugs with which we should be concerned.
The other day, I ascertained as far as I could from those who have studied this in Washington whether any tests exist. My information is that there is no way of ascertaining the quantity of barbiturates or amphetamines taken by a person, although, by a test of the eyes, it is possible to tell whether it has been taken or not. In other words, the presence can be detected, but not the quantity which puts us into real difficulty in respect of the Bill.
First, I see no reason why we should not be the first to succeed in research on the subject. We are very good at this kind of thing and should pursue research activity because, without drugs added to it in the sense urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, there is a large lacuna in the Bill. We have been talking about alcohol, but as long as people can drive with alcohol and drugs mixed, we are not dealing with road safety in this Bill, although it may be called a Road Safety Bill. I hope that research will be pushed hard. There is no reason why we should not find the right answers.
Secondly, surely we should signal this Bill with fresh guidance to everyone who takes drugs as to the danger that alcohol and drugs can constitute. I am thinking not only of people who may be using barbiturates and amphetamines but those who may be taking special drugs for specific complaints. Fresh guidance should be issued about what these can do in conjunction with alcohol. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to accept the main points of the Amendment, I hope that at least we shall have some reassurance on these lines.

Mr. J. T. Price: The views expressed by hon. Members opposite on this matter are not confined to one side of the House. I share some of them very strongly. I shall not weary the House by examining the technical difficulties—of which we are all aware—in establishing any form of enforcement in the present stage of our medical knowledge.
I know that in many ways those who have supported the imposition of penalties on alcoholic drivers have always been met by the technical difficulties in evolving a sufficiently accurate test of the reputed intoxication to a certain degree. What cannot be denied is that the purpose of the Bill is to deal with those who are in a degree of intoxication, either by the taking of alcohol or by the taking of drugs, so as to seriously impair their ability to drive a motor vehicle.
In that sense, I cannot think that my hon. and learned Friend will be well advised merely to say "No" to this proposition and to say that it is impracticable. I believe that the Ministry should have reserve powers and that we should pursue our researches a little further to see how far we can apply to drugs the penalities which are to apply to alcoholic drivers.
Another aspect is directly linked with this subject. In some countries—certainly in Canada, to my knowledge—it is an offence to be caught driving a motor vehicle while in the possession of alcoholic drinks. To be caught carrying alcoholic beverages of any kind—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that arises on the Amendment before the House, which relates to the question of whether we should add the words,
or having taken a drug".

Mr. Price: I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not pursue the point. But surely it is an equal offence to carry noxious substances such as drugs, which are such a menace to the country, as the Press has been telling us in recent controversy, and this aspect should be dealt with also. I hope that the Minister will give consideration not only to reserving to herself power to apply penalties to those who are incapable of driving because they are under the influence of


drugs but also to those who are carrying drugs. This aspect might well be the subject of another Amendment.

Sir Clive Bossom: I do not feel that the Home Office is giving a clear and precise enough direction to the police about the taking of drugs on top of drink, or even about a driver who has taken drugs only. Unfortunately, drugs are being taken by larger and larger numbers of people in larger and larger amounts. These people come from all walks of life and are of all ages. Not only are drugs being taken to relieve pain, but young people take them "for kicks".
As has been pointed out, there is not any simple device which can be used to detect the effect of drugs. I remember the Under-Secretary of State, in Committee, told us that it would be
… impracticable … to define an offence as driving with more than a prescribed quantity of drugs in the blood."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th December, 1966; c. 207.]
That was much too vague as it stood. The Home Office must do a great deal more research into this and give a much clearer direction. I do not think that it has gone into research into chemical antidotes—for example, the "Alcohol Pill" which could be called a type of drug. These have not been introduced into this country, but no doubt they will soon be produced and they will give a mixed-up reading on all the breath meter devices. In Standing Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman was rather vague about this matter. I hope that now he will be able to clear it up rather more than he did then.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: Obviously, drugs are a very important question in relation to driving. Obviously, too, they can become an increasingly important factor in the impairment of certain drivers, and I agree with those who have said that we should not under-estimate the problem. We will take note of the concern expressed about the need for research into this and the need, in certain cases, for guidance. But I hope to persuade the House that the Amendment is not appropriate to the Bill.
As I explained in Committee, the reason that drugs must be referred to in the Long Title is that there are references

in the Bill to drugs. There are incidental references in Clause 3(8), for example, to Sections in the 1962 Act which deal with drugs. That is the only reason that drugs are referred to in the Long Title.
But the Bill is solely concerned with drink. It is not concerned with drugs. This is, firstly, because we do not have sufficient knowledge. There is no knowledge about the effects of particular concentrations of drugs, other than alcohol, on a person's ability to drive properly similar to that which exists in the case of accident liability at different blood alcohol levels.
It is therefore impractical at present to define an offence of driving with more than a prescribed amount of drugs in the blood. The effect of a combination of alcohol and drugs may complicate the issue. It is known that when alcohol and barbiturates are combined their joint effect is greater than the sum of each would suggest, which makes it more difficult to have prescribed limits for drugs. Research suggests that with most tranquilisers the effect of the combination with alcohol is merely additive. The cases where motorists are impaired solely because of drugs are at present only a very small proportion of the whole in Britain. It is undoubtedly possible that, with the greater use of drugs and the larger quantities of barbiturates being prescribed, the number may increase. But it is just as likely that, in future, greater problems will arise of motorists who will be affected by a combination of alcohol and drugs, and the need for some sort of guidance is something that we shall look into.
Secondly, apart from the difficulty of defining the prescribed level, there is the further difficulty that the machinery in the Bill, in Clause 2, for detecting offenders on the road is that of the breath device and this cannot be applied to drugs. Therefore, in future, drug cases will have to be dealt with as they have been in the past. Those who have more than a safe quantity of drugs and whose ability to drive is affected will have to be dealt with and may have to be arrested under Section 6(4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which does not define impairment in terms of blood-alcohol concentration. Evidence of impairment from the behaviour of the driver can be given


in future as in past cases. In some respects, however, the Bill will help. Subject to Clause 2(7), it will be possible to give a person arrested under Section 6 a breath test at the police station. If the result is negative, that fact, combined with an evident impairment in other respects, may point to its being a drug case and may warn the police to call in a doctor to examine the person with that in mind. In this respect the breath test may show a negative result when there is clearly impairment, and this may point to a drug case which would otherwise have been difficult to discover.
Since drugs cases cannot be positively detected by any means such as this, the police can at present arrest people only when there is evidence of driving impairment. As I have explained, it is impracticable to try to discover the amount of drugs present in the way that one can test for alcohol. Indeed, there is no prospect of our being able to make regulations covering the principle proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite or in the machinery of the Bill. There is, therefore, no alternative method at present for dealing with this matter other than by the existing law.
It is true that in future scientific knowledge may enable drug cases to be brought within the general principles of the Bill, and certainly at that point an amendment of the Measure would be desirable and would obviously be made. But this is not at present envisaged as being likely and we consider that there are disadvantages in taking powers which we cannot see any likelihood of our using in the foreseeable future.
It is not only the case that some drugs cannot be quantified. There is also the question of the wide variety of drugs that could lead to, or could have contributed to, impairment. We are not, therefore, in a position to prescribe a limit, to accept the Amendment, or to take powers for which there could be no use in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Bessell: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? Is the Ministry of Transport doing anything to encourage research into this matter?

Mr. Taverne: I will look into that point. I do not think that the Ministry

of Transport would be concerned with this matter in relation to drugs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is the subject of research, although I cannot tell him precisely what research is being done.

Mr. Carlisle: While sympathising with the difficulty in which the Under-Secretary finds himself, I was somewhat disappointed at the attitude he adopted towards the Amendment. It is not adequate merely to say that the Bill has nothing to do with drugs and that we must, therefore, leave the position entirely as it is.
I had some difficulty in understanding some of the objections voiced by the hon. and learned Gentleman. For example, he said that one objection was that alcohol and drugs combined—the combined effect they had on impairment—was greater than the individual effect of the two. While accepting that, and while agreeing that alcohol and drugs combined may produce a greater degree of impairment than merely drugs by themselves—

Mr. Taverne: In some cases.

Mr. Carlisle: —that is no argument against having some means of attempting to test for the amount of drugs in a person's system. We are merely saying that the Government should have power to take this matter further at the appropriate time, although we appreciate that the court will be dependent on the existing law where impairment to drive is shown.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the breath test. We have understood that part of the object of this test is not merely to decide whether or not a person has had too much to drink, but also to be able to prove the offence. I have understood that the Bill was intended to meet the difficulty in drink cases where although one may have reason to believe that a person has had a great deal to drink it has been difficult to prove impairment. I cannot see why, merely because the breath test does not show the presence of drugs, the evidence which could be produced by showing that a quantity of drugs was in the bloodstream could not play an effective and important part in providing evidence for a prosecution.


My hon. Friends and I appreciate the difficulty of being able successfully to test for the quantity of drugs which a person has taken. Nevertheless, the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that this is a major problem, the size of which was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), and that it is bound to be a growing one. We should, therefore, face the fact that probably the most dangerous combination of all is the combination of alcohol and drugs. I hope that the Under-Secretary will also ensure that the Home Office and Ministry of Transport undertake research into the effects of drugs and the possibility of testing for the amount of drugs in a person's body, particularly if research of this kind is not now being done.
Further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), I suggest that Amendment No. 43 is consequential on the other Amendments. If the word "drugs" were added to Clause 1, this would enable the Minister to prescribe, by regulations, the limit of any particular drug. This could be done at a later stage, under Clause 6, when scientifically we are able to measure the amount of drugs in a person's bloodstream. I hope that, if nothing else, this debate has clearly drawn people's attention to the real danger that exists, particularly among young people, from taking drugs in any quantity, then drinking alcohol and then driving.

Amendment negatived.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in line 15, to leave out from 'conviction' to 'to' in line 16.
This is a purely consequential Amendment.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for accepting the principle of an Amendment which my hon. Friends and I moved in Committee and which was designed to alter the order of the penalties provided by the Bill. As originally drafted, the Bill provided that the first alternative penalty was imprisonment and that the second alternative was a fine. We felt that this gave the wrong emphasis; and that is why we asked for the order to

be reversed. We were told on that occasion that in 1965 only 196 persons were sent to prison out of 6,489 people summarily convicted of driving when impaired. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that it is the Government's intention that only in rare cases will imprisonment be imposed under this Clause.

Mr. John Morris: I cannot add to what was said in Committee. As was requested by hon. Members on both sides, the order is being reversed. The implementation of this provision is a matter for the courts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(PRELIMINARY TESTS.)

Mr. Frank Hooky: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 27, after 'may', to insert 'at any time'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time the following Amendments: No. 4, in line 30, leave out from 'nearby' to end of line 33 and insert:
'and for that purpose may, without prejudice to section 223 of the principal Act (power of police to stop vehicles on roads), require a person driving a motor vehicle on any such place to stop the vehicle'.

Amendment No. 5, in line 30, leave out from 'nearby' to end of line 33.

Mr. Hooley: That is satisfactory.
The purpose of this series of Amendments will be clear. It is to introduce the principle of random tests. This matter has been debated at length, both on Second Reading and in Committee. In general, I deprecate the practice of rehearsing on the Floor of the House matters that have been gone into at considerable length in Committee. On this occasion, however, I believe that the road casualties of Christmas, 1966, provide ample justification for my raising this matter again and urging my right hon. Friend to accept the principle of random tests. The appalling casualty rate at Christmas time outraged and shocked the entire nation and provoked comment in all responsible newspapers. That comment was, I believe, though I cannot


quote chapter and verse, almost unanimous in condemning drink as a main cause of those casualties.
5.30 p.m.
I do not want to quote at length from the various newspapers, but I should like to mention one piece of evidence from a man whose grisly task it was to cope with the results of this carnage at Christmas time. He was a doctor at the Birmingham Accident Hospital and was on duty over the Christmas holiday period. He said that there was no doubt about the serious effects of Christmas drinking. Friday and Christmas Eve had followed the same pattern: relatively quiet until 11 p.m.—the city's closing time; then very busy till 3 a.m. on Christmas Eve and till 5 a.m. on Christmas Day, with Christmas parties tending to go on rather longer on Christmas Eve than on the Friday. In London the busiest time for 999 calls was, as always, what the ambulance men call the "last party day"—this time it was the Friday, when office parties were in full swing. I have no doubt that hospitals and surgeons all over the country could provide evidence similar to that produced by the Birmingham Accident Hospital and the London hospitals.
If it is accepted, and I think that it is fairly generally accepted, that the drink is a serious contributory cause of accidents on the road, would it help to have random tests as part of this Bill? There is, after all, fairly strong scientific means of testing whether or not people have alcohol in their blood. Would it be of any additional use to make a random test possible under this legislation? Here I must call in evidence what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee. His words were:
I would be the first to agree that the Bill will be less of a deterrent, even though a new substantive offence is created, without random checks."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee E; 29th November, 1966; c. 128.]
We want a Bill that is not less but more of a deterrent, and such a provision would, on the evidence of the Government Front Bench itself, make this Measure a more deterrent and more effective piece of legislation.
One of the arguments that have been advanced against purely random tests is that they would cause great damage to relations between the general motoring

public and the police. Referring to this point on Second Reading, the Minister was at pains to point out:
There can … be no question of the police setting up traps just round the corner from a public house and waiting to pounce."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 987.]
In other words, under this Bill it is not intended to give the police some sort of special right of persecution of motorists, but I suggest that the Bill as it stands is likely to be more damaging to relations with the police than would be the introduction of the principle of random tests.
What does the Bill say? The words are:
… if the constable has reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his body …
I defy any constable to decide, merely by seeing the car travelling along the road, whether its driver has any alcohol in his body—short of the very extreme case where the car is being driven all over the road. The only way in which a policeman can have reasonable cause to suspect that a driver has been consuming alcohol is to be somewhat near to a place where it is known that alcohol is consumed, and to watch the person driving away from that place. Since in a private house there may or may not be a party going on at any time, the only place where one can reasonably suspect that some motorist has been consuming alcohol is at a public house, and if a constable must have cause before being able to pull up a motorist and requiring him to take a test it seems to me that he is forced to be at a place on the highway at a time of day or night where and when it is reasonable to suppose that a motorist has been drinking.
If we adopt the random test principle there is no slur or stigma whatever on a motorist being pulled up and required to take a breath test. If it were known that the police had a perfectly random power to require this test to be taken it would be clear that perfectly innocent people could be asked to undergo the test, and this would in no way imply that the police had any cause at all to suspect that the driver had been consuming alcohol.
Let me put the matter in this way. In the past four weeks I have twice been stopped by the police, who were making a random check about stolen vehicles.


They stopped me in my car and asked if I would be kind enough to produce some evidence that it was my car. This I did, and that was the end of the matter. I said "Good night", and we parted company. The police had no reason to suppose that I was driving a stolen vehicle—no reason at all; they were simply making a random anti-crime check, as they call it, of people travelling on that bit of road at that time of night. I might add that in one case I was stopped within a half-mile of this House, and on the other occasion it was near my own constituency. In neither case did I have any resentment about being pulled up. It was a routine check being made by the police, and no stigma attached to me. The police had no possible reason to suspect that I had committed any crime.
If we included in this Bill the principle of the random check there could be no slur or stigma on anyone pulled up, as it would be generally known that the police had this power and could exercise it at any reasonable time on any part of the highway. If we leave the Bill as it stands and I am stopped by the police, who say, "We want you to take a breath test," I suggest that there is an implied slur. The implication is that the constable has some cause—I do not know what cause it could be—to stop me to undergo a breath test; that he has some cause to suspect that I was drinking before setting out in my car.
Even though there may be no justification at all for it, the slur is there, and if some of my constituents chanced to see me pulled up by the police for this purpose, they might ask, "What reason have the police for supposing that he had been drinking before getting into his car? He is a man who says that he does not drink, but obviously the police have cause to suspect that he has been drinking"— and not only that but that I had been drinking and then driving. On the random test principle they could not say that. If the test were purely random, a complete teetotaller or a regular drinker can be tested and no stigma would attach to him.
I fail to see how a random test could impair relations between the motoring public and the police. Obviously the police will exercise this power with discretion, as they

exercise their other powers. The mere fact that they had it would act as a deterrent to the irresponsible section of the motoring community who, at the moment, think that they can drive better when they have consumed five whiskies than anyone can drive when he is stone-cold sober.
My hon. Friends and I introduce this Amendment in no hostile or carping spirit. I am sure that my hon. Friends would wish me to congratulate the Minister on bringing this legislation forward into a heavy legislative programme. It is legislation which is long overdue. It should have been introduced 10, 15, perhaps 20 years ago. We welcome the legislation, but we believe that the principle of random tests would provide a stiffer deterrent and, so far from impairing relations with the police, would make them better than they will be under the present provisions.

Mr. Frederic Harris: If the hon. Member's suggestion were adopted, where would we find all the police to do this work?

Mr. Hooley: I have already covered that point. Obviously the police would exercise the same discretion in making random tests as under the provisions whereby they are supposed to have some suspicion before they make a test. There would be no reason to make more or fewer tests.
I close my speech by quoting from a newspaper with whose political outlook I do not very much agree, but which I think has put its views on this matter very cogently. The Daily Mail said:
Plans to allow random tests were abandoned because the motoring lobby claimed that it would be a gross infringement of individual freedom. Of course it would! It would attack the freedom of motorists to kill and injure innocent people through their own lack of thought.
It would attack the freedom to roar off from the public-house in a spurious glow of confidence and speed fearlessly through a built-up area. It would attack the freedom to saturate the reactions with so much alcohol that all judgment, timing and driving skill is lost. Are these freedoms worth defending? … Random breath tests and stiffer penalties should bring home to every motorist what exhortation has so far failed to do—the fact that drunken driving is a risk not worth taking. The only people who need fear for their personal liberty are those who should not have been driving.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: There seem to be three occasions, by the terms of the Clause as at present drawn, when the police would require the administration of a test. The first is by the terms of paragraph (b) when the police have reason to suspect a motorist of
having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion".
In those circumstances we should be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We would be saying that the test should be administered to a motorist when he has already committed an offence, perhaps already been involved in an accident or is on the point of being involved in an accident, and when it would be very likely that if he were left alone he would be involved in an accident. Of course we want the police to have the right to stop motorists and to administer a test in those circumstances, but that does not take us very much further forward.
In Committee an hon. Member said that in only 6 per cent. of accidents is it demonstrable that drink has been a contributory cause. So it is in the present state of the law, but very few would believe that in only 6 per cent. of accidents does a drink make a contribution. It may not be demonstrable, but there is a fair amount of evidence that drink affects people's driving even thought it cannot be said under the present state of the law to impair it. By paragraph (b) we shall be catching many of these offenders. We shall be able to demonstrate for the first time, as the law will then be, that drink was a contributory factor. That is fair enough, but it does not take us very much further.
We are left with paragraph (a) which tells us that the police can demand the administration of the test when they have cause to suspect a motorist
of having alcohol in his body".
The police would have reason to suspect a man of having alcohol in his body if he was coming out of a pub, for the simple reason that 99 per cent. of people who go into pubs have something to drink and there is alcohol in the drink. Some people go into a public house merely for a sandwich or a lemonade, but such people are few and far between.
It is absurd to say that the police will not set up traps under the terms of this Bill. It is not a question of a trap if a policeman stands 100 yards away from a pub, sees a man go into the pub and get into his car half an hour later and then says that he has reason to believe that the man has alcohol in his body. He has a perfectly good reason to suspect that. We are wasting our time when we give assurances that the law will not be applied rigorously. It is inevitable that the police will stop motorists in those circumstances. I think it right and proper, and I hope that we shall not be told again today that the police will not stop people in those circumstances.
I said in Committee and I make no apology for repeating it that what worries me is that the Christmas statistics were terrifying and were not only the result of drinking in public houses but also partly of drinking at private parties. Although the police may stop people who have been drinking on licensed premises, under the terms of the Bill as at present drawn they will not stop them when they have been drinking privately, perhaps to a much greater degree—when they have been at a party or in a restaurant which has a licence, or when they are leaving this Palace. Anyone leaving this Palace might have been drinking, but the police would not have reasonable cause to suspect him.
Nor would the police have reasonable cause to suspect, if they saw two or three people coming out of a private house where they might have been at a party that they have been drinking. We are saying that we shall deliberately encourage a change in the social habits of this country away from drinking on public licensed premises towards the Swedish pattern of drinking in private. What evidence there is does not suggest that drinking in private—particularly if one looks at the Swedish evidence, of which there is a fair amount—is in any way preferable to drinking in public licensed premises and then driving.

Mr. J. T. Price: Whatever the Swedish experience may be, would not my hon. Friend agree that there is a good deal of evidence available about this matter in Canada? From coast to coast, social legislation about public drinking is so severe that people tend to over-drink in


private, and instead of having a couple of drops of whisky for the journey, they buy a bottle and consume it before resuming the journey, because if they are caught carrying whisky on the journey they will be guilty of an offence. So Canadian experience is also valuable in this connection.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark. It seems to me inevitable that if the Bill is passed in the form in which it is we shall encourage people to drink heavily in private rather than in public.
The third occasion on which the police will be able to demand the administration of a test by the terms of this Bill is when they have already stopped a motorist for another reason. Here I would quote from what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), said in the Standing Committee, that
already under Section 223"—
that is, of the principal Act of 1960—
the police have wide powers to stop any vehicle. They use those powers in their general enforcement of the law; for example, when they are searching for stolen goods, checking up on people late at night on some of our great motorways, and checking up on law breaking generally. The police have very wide powers, and there is no change under the present Bill. But having stopped a vehicle a constable has power to ask a person to undergo a breath test only if he has reasonable cause to suspect that person of having alcohol in his body".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th November, 1966; c. 129.]
That is, he smells his breath. I think that is the easiest way to put it. What we are saying is that the third occasion on which the police stop a man is because and merely because the police are doing a general check to find stolen vehicles or stolen goods, and so on, under their powers generally to stop a motorist, and that they can then take this test.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that this will have the most serious effect on the relations between the police and the public. It seems to me arrant nonsense to suggest that there would be a greater deterioration if the Bill were redrafted to permit the police to impose purely random spot checks. I would resent it very much—and I think I speak

for most hon. Members—if I were stopped merely because the police had decided that they would have a general check on licences in a certain area and while they were checking my licence they also said, "You have been drinking. Will you please breathe into this bag". Perhaps I would not have been drinking very much, but my resentment would be the greater than if I knew in advance that the police had powers to stop me at any time for that specific reason of imposing the breath test.
In the most perfect police force things are not always right, and we cannot expect them to be, and if the police should—I am not suggesting they will—but should be tempted to set up a check on licences, or a check for stolen vehicles, but with the motive of imposing what would be in effect random breath tests on motorists, there would be a very serious worsening in the relations between the police and the public in that area.
So my view of this is that we should introduce random tests, for the reasons that, firstly, the Clause, as drawn at the moment, does not go far enough; secondly, it changes our social habits in a way that I do not much desire, namely, by encouraging the habit of drinking in private rather than in public; and, thirdly, it would lead to a greater deterioration in the relations between the police and the public than would random tests.

Mr. Bessell: I must confess that I have been in extreme difficulty in trying to decide whether one should support or not support this Amendment. I recall that when this Bill first saw the light of day many people—and I was among them—felt that it was quite wrong that the police should have the right to stop any drivers without any cause whatsoever and require them to take a breath test to see whether they had consumed a quantity of alcohol likely to cause them to be dangerous drivers. I was very glad indeed when the right hon. Lady amended her Bill and that we now have a Clause which requires a constable to have "reasonable cause" to suspect that the driver has been drinking.
I believe that this is important because it preserves an essential part of the law of the land. I believe, too, that I am right in saying that there is no example


of the police being allowed to search, or to require any individual to undergo any sort of test, unless the police have reasonable cause for suspecting that a person is committing an offence. It is a fact, for example, that the Customs and Excise officers have no right to search under the Customs and Excise Act unless they have reasonable cause to suppose that a person is smuggling.

Sir David Renton: The police can only use the powers the hon. Member mentions when the offence is a serious one. At present, it must be a felony, and the abolishing of the difference between misdemeanours and felonies, as I understand it, means that those powers will still apply only to serious offences.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful for that intervention. It supports the point I am trying to make, namely, that if the Bill had not been amended in this way it would have been a departure in law which, I feel, would have been a very serious one and certainly could not have been taken lightly.
This is not to say I am not concerned, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned, that this Bill should be effective, but I am not convinced that by rewording this Clause again in the way they suggest to the House it should be done would make it any more effective, because if the police have the right to stop a driver, or a person about to drive a car, whom they consider is likely to be suffering from the effects of too much alcohol, I am perfectly certain the police will use it scrupulously, and that it will result in many convictions which would not otherwise have taken place.
It is certainly necessary there should be tests of this sort; indeed, this is the whole purpose of the Clause; but what is the case for suspecting a person is intoxicated? I would suggest that, if someone staggers forth from a public house, or even, if I may say so with respect, an hon. Member staggers from the entrance to this House, in a condition in which he is clearly unfit to drive a car, or so that it appears that he is either very tired or possibly under the influence of alcohol, then it would be right for the police, assuming they can see external signs of this, to require him to take a breath test.

Mr. Fowler: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the Clause as drafted says that if the constable has
reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his body"?
It is not that he is intoxicated or impaired or unfit to drive.

Mr. Bessell: No. This is, I recognise, a point, but I think the reason why it is worded in this way is that it is so difficult to define what is a dangerous amount of alcohol, and, therefore, if the police officer smells a person's breath or sees him staggering a little, or sees some outward sign of intoxication, it is right the police should have this right, which the Bill provides, to require that person to undertake a test. If we say that anybody can be stopped, that we can set up a police block on any road, take any one driver in 10—I am using that figure of 1 in 10 merely as an example—it means that instead of the police pursuing actively cases which are obvious, they will be again and again stopping people who in the vast majority of cases will be found to be innocent. This would take the police away from the valuable and important task of trying to catch people about whom they have a reasonable suspicion.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Mapp: There are two points involved at this stage. I should like the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, who has legal knowledge. I am not legal. Take the case of two people going down a highway, one without a car and one with. As I understand the law, a policeman is entitled to stop me if I am a pedestrian and ask me preliminary questions in the pursuit of his duty. I should like to know whether the difference of the machine confers on the motorist now any different legal right in respect of being asked preliminary questions about his conduct.
Secondly, if a policeman stops me with a car, and my first half-dozen words or my attitude lead him to believe that I might have been drinking, what is wrong with that? If I have not been drinking what liberty have I lost in simply responding to the normal appeal of a police officer?

Mr. Bessell: Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman has flattered me by suggesting that I am a lawyer. I am not. I have no knowledge of the


law beyond that of a layman. However, I know that it is a fact that although one may be stopped by the police and asked many questions, there is absolutely no obligation on one to answer them. I believe that this is a distinction which has always been made in law, and that is why I object to the suggestion in the Amendment of a departure.
I hope that I have made my point clear. I believe that, while a great deal of sympathy must be expressed for the point of view which has been given to the House in these Amendments, and while I think that at a later stage, if the Bill does not prove to be effective in its present form, there could be a strong argument for introducing an Amendment on these lines, I am anxious that the police shall not be encumbered by the carrying out of random tests which are likely to involve a great many innocent people. I would prefer that the all too limited strength of the police should be concentrated upon the people whom they have cause to believe are likely to be a danger to the public and to the life and safety of other road users.

Mr. Tony Gardner: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley) I have no wish to go over old ground covered in Committee, but I hope that I can emphasise the point that he made, that after the Christmas disaster—"disaster" is the only word with which to describe the total of road accidents and casualties last Christmas—I trust that my right hon. Friend will, even at this late stage, return to her first love.
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, my right hon. Friend made very clear that she favoured the random check in the first instance, and that she had been persuaded by evidence and representations put to her that that provision should go and that the Clause as it now stands should be substituted for it.
Like the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), I am not a lawyer, but I think that we take the general point that when the House introduces new laws we should be very careful that they are reasonable and are generally acceptable to the public. This is a very important point, which was made during the Second Reading, and we should take notice of it.
But we must go on to ask: acceptable to whom? I have no doubt that various representations have been made, and we must look for evidence of feeling on the matter. If I wished, I could adduce evidence of the 1966 General Election. The noble Lord who was my predecessor in my constituency led the opposition to the first Bill as it was originally drafted. He made a number of speeches in the constituency about it, and I also made a few. This received a great deal of Press coverage. It may not be good evidence, but the fact remains that I won the constituency at the General Election.
One assumes that the main weight of evidence brought to bear in favour of the Bill as it now stands and against random checks must have come from the main motoring organisations. I declare an interest here because I am a member of one of the large national motoring organisations. I should like to say, in the kindest possible way, that there are at least one or two occasions each year when I determine very forcibly that I will never pay my subscription again. Unfortunately, the time of the year comes round when I realise the very considerable services that this motoring organisation provides for me, and I weaken when the time comes and pay.
However, I am very sorry that this kind of pressure has persuaded my right hon. Friend to emasculate what I believe was a first-class Bill. It seems to me to be illogical to say, as all responsible motorists and motoring organisations do, that one must not drink and drive, and yet, when it comes to the point of decision, also say that we must be careful that we do not introduce a form of checking and enforcement which will cause inconvenience to motorists. That is what it is all about.
There is no point in going over old ground again, but I have three questions to ask my right hon. Friend. The first was raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederic Harris) in an intervention on the question of the logistics. It is true that we are already short of police and that the Bill, as now drafted, will impose further burdens on them. But I wonder whether the burdens imposed by properly set up random checks would be any different from those which will presumably be imposed if the police, in their wisdom, decide to start a


special series of checks of licences, stopping at white lines, or whatever the cause for stopping motorists may be.
In any case, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether all police vehicles will carry the testing equipment? I should have thought that if we were talking about costs and logistics, it might be argued that a limited number of random checks would cut the amount of equipment needed and that the equipment could then be used regularly and most economically. So I should like to know how the system will operate.
Secondly, I am worried about "reasonable cause". What is the position of a motorist who is stopped for some purpose by the police—perhaps the police are checking for stolen cars—and is asked to take a test and refuses? Under the provisions of the Bill, he has then committed an offence. I am worried about the position if the motorist happens to be wealthy enough to be able to employ a first-class barrister. In that situation there might be a very long legal argument in court. Might not general unfairness arise because one man is able to have such assistance and another not?
Thirdly, what instructions will be given to chief constables about the way in which they should operate the Clause? We have heard many different versions. We are told that we shall, in effect, have a kind of random check because this is the way that it will work. Are we to get random checks by the police when they say that they are checking for something else? That will immediately upset motorists. Are the police going to lie in wait and check on something else in order to make a check of this kind? If this is the case, does not my right hon. Friend think that it will cause even greater deterioration in the relations between motorists and police?
I have tried to find evidence of this strong feeling. I tried seriously during the Christmas Recess to find it among my fellow motorists, and, if I may say so, among my fellow drinkers. When the issues were put squarely to them—the choice between the position as set out in the Clause and random checks—everybody to whom I spoke agreed that it would be much better to have an objective, simply stated random test than all

the suspicion which might arise as a result of the present one.
Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill very much. I welcome the offence which is created and the provisions for enforcement which are already in the first part of the Bill. I make this plea to my right hon. Friend. We now have an opportunity to make it clear once and for all that we mean business on the question of drink and driving. If we cannot make this alteration now, I ask her to think about it and, when the Bill is in another place, to take that opportunity of making enforcement really effective.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I go a long way with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). During the time I have been in the House I have tried to do a small amount for road safety. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite who are new to the House are taking up the question of road safety with such vigour and helpfulness, because this activity is saving lives and limbs.
When the original Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, I was never one of those who was vigorously opposed to random tests. I tried to weigh up what would be the best answer for the public in general and for motorists in particular. However, I have come to the conclusion that any law enacted by Parliament must be accepted by the public as being fairly reasonable. We must ensure that the law we make can and will be enforced. If new laws are not respected, and if people know that they can get away with contravening them, the efforts we take are hardly worth our time.
The tragedy of the road accident figures last Christmas has been referred to, and also the consequent publicity the Minister got for the Bill. However, road accidents are occurring all the time. They do not happen only at Christmas, although they may be more highlighted then because of Chistmas drinking. We should take account of that consideration in formulating our attitude to the Bill.
During the Christmas Recess I carried out some investigations. I talked to the police. I remind the House that in Committee a Government spokesman said that breathalysers would be carried only by


mobile squads of the police. I do not know what instructions will go to chief constables. I hope that their hands will not be entirely tied. These tests will be carried out by only a small section of the police force, we are told. The procedure will be new. The penalties when people are caught will be severe.
It may well be that in two or three years' time much more drastic action will have to be taken, if the Bill does not work. I believe that it would be going too far to go the whole way now. The Minister, on the evidence placed before her, has reached the same conclusion. At the moment we have probably got this somewhere near right, with the ability of the police to enforce this provision when the Bill is enacted, and having made the first impact on people that if their ability to drive is impaired they can lose their licences for a year without their having been drunk. If this is not enough, we shall have to go further.
The right hon. Lady has promised us that this is only one of a series of Road Safety Bills. We shall look to her, or to a successor from this party when we are returned to power, to bring in a Bill to carry this the whole way. I believe that the Amendment would go too far to be acceptable to the public, would impose too great a burden on the police, and would strain their relations with the public to an unacceptable extent. Therefore, I could not support the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Awdry: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) brought party politics into this matter. I do not propose to go down that road. We have had no party politics so far on the Bill.
I must admit that when I first considered the Bill I did not see any great objection to random tests, although most of my hon. Friends entirely disagreed with me. What had the innocent motorist to fear, the argument ran, because there would be a negative report on him and there would be no slur on his character?
Having since given the matter much thought, I now realise that the Minister was quite right to discard random checks. I hope that she will not change her mind tonight. It must have been a very difficult decision indeed for the right hon.

Lady, and I hope that she will not have third thoughts.
I believe that some misundertading has arisen in the minds of hon. Members and of the general public. Some people seem to think that the argument is all about the power of the police to stop motorists. Police constables already have complete powers to stop motorists under Section 223 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. The question is not about stopping motorists. The question is about applying this preliminary breath test.
The commonsense of the matter—here I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell)—is that police officers should be allowed to apply tests if they have any reason to believe that an offence is being committed. We have an Amendment down to that effect. It will be debated later, so I will not anticipate that question. If this Amendment were accepted tests would be applied completely regardless of whether a police officer had any suspicion of any offence. Apart from anything else, it would be a colossal waste of police manpower at a time when manpower is very short.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said that there will not be a waste, because policemen will use their discretion—in other words, police officers would act only if they had some suspicion. That is the end of random checking, anyway.
More important, I believe that there will be a wave of discontent against the police if the Amendment were accepted. It is absolutely vital that the police should get the public's co-operation. It may be, as the hon. Member for Heeley said, that hon. Members would not mind being stopped. Perhaps the general public would not mind being stopped, but I think that members of the general public would strongly resent having to blow into a bag. I could imagine resentment arising in many instances, for example when doctors were answering calls and were asked to stop or when family men out for a drive at the weekend were asked to stop for several minutes while a bag was produced and they were asked to blow into it. This would make for bad relations with the police. Finally, it would be a great intrusion on personal liberty. I urge the Minister to stick to her guns.

Mr. John Ellis: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that people are very concerned about road safety? In an effort to save lives and to deter motorists from driving whilst their ability to drive was impaired, people would be willing to stop and blow into a bag, even though this necessitated a delay of a few minutes.

Mr. Awdry: I assure the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on both sides are deeply concerned about road safety. This point came out clearly in our debates in Standing Committee. Both sides agreed. It is a question of judgment as to how this aspect is dealt with.
I doubt if the hon. Gentleman is right. There may be some public spirited people who will not in the least mind being delayed for ten minutes whilst a machine is produced and they blow into a bag. Others will become very angry at being stopped when they are in a hurry and are on the way to some function and have to keep their families waiting while they get out of the car and blow into a bag.
This must be a matter of judgment. The hon. Gentleman has his opinion I have mine. I believe that the public would regard this as an intrusion into their liberty and I ask the Minister to stick to her guns.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) in the Amendment which he has moved, and at the same time I ask leave to propose Amendment No. 4—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot propose it. He can, however, speak about it.

Mr. Lyon: Then I shall speak about it, Mr. Speaker. Amendment No. 4, to which I and my hon. Friends have put our names, is to the same effect as Amendment No. 2, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley, and, in fact, I prefer his wording. The only reason why I put down Amendment No. 4 is that it uses the words which appeared in the original Bill introduced before the last election. I am anxious that we should not be met by a reply from the Government in the stock phrase that the drafting of the Amendment leaves something to be desired. If the drafting of Amendment No. 4 leaves some-

thing to be desired, it is the Government's fault because they used those words themselves. I could carry the argument a little further, perhaps for the amusement of hon. Members, if I were to quote in support of my Amendment the arguments which were put by my right hon. Friend the Minister in moving the Second Reading of the Bill which she introduced before the last election. But this matter is far too serious for the making of points at the Minister's expense.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department closed the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, he finished in ringing tones by telling us that in Austria the effect of introducing such proposals had been to cut the casualty rate by about one-third and that in this country it was expected that there would be a saving in the casualty rate of between 18,000 and 32,000. That sounds well enough, but what struck me as he said that was concern for the 56,000 to 96,000 who would not be saved by the provisions of the Bill. I am interested in getting the maximum effect from the proposals in Part I so that we shall substantially reduce the number of casualties each year.
There is no question but that the country ardently wants the sort of objective test of impairment provided for in the Bill and would be prepared to accept it wholeheartedly. The question then arises: how best do we enforce this new law, how best do we use it so that it has the maximum deterrent effect?
There has been, in my opinion, some loose talk from various parts of the House to the effect that, if we were to have wholesale random checks, we would not have the police to supervise them and the system would put an intolerable strain upon them in the time which they have available. In my view, this is to overlook the nature of the power which is to be given in random checking. It is not that there will be a trap set by the police where motorists would be channelled into a particular avenue and then be checked, a number of policemen being engaged on the duty. The wholesale random check simply gives to a police constable in uniform the power at any time to stop a motor vehicle and to ask that the driver take a breathalyser test.


That is all that was intended in the previous Bill and all that I intend by Amendment No. 4. It means that there would be a power to he used whenever the police constable thought fit, and he would never be liable to an action for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution or anything else simply because he stopped a vehicle and asked the driver to take a test. It would be a protection for the policeman in any event, and it would not necessarily mean that there would be traps set all over the country. It would simply mean that, wherever he considered it right, a police constable could stop a car and apply a test.
What would be the effect of introducing such wholesale random tests? In my view, there would be the maximum deterrent effect. My right hon. Friend the Minister thought the same when she introduced the Bill before the election. She then said:
If we want a deterrent, there could be no more effective way than for people to realise that there would always be a possibility of their being asked to undertake a random test." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1966; Vol. 724. c. 661.]
This is the whole point. If, in administering this new law, we are merely to say that no person will be charged with an offence unless he is found to be committing or to have committed a moving traffic offence, for example, then the damage will have been done before he is about to be prosecuted. We must introduce into the application of this new law a system of random tests so that there is uncertainty about when a person will be stopped, an uncertainty which in itself will breed the deterrent effect. People will be careful about the amount of drink they consume—indeed, they will be careful not to consume drink at all when driving—if the Bill has the maximum deterrent effect. What we are arguing about here is how to achieve it.
Unfortunately, there are two views about the effect of the Bill if passed in its unamended form. I take the view that there will, in fact, be power to administer random checks at will by the police. I tried to make this point on Second Reading, I was glad to see that it was discussed at some length in Committee, and it has been raised tonight, but I shall rehearse it again for those who, perhaps, have not heard it.
Under Section 223 of the principal Act, a person must stop if he is asked to do so by a police constable in uniform. Therefore, the power to stop exists. Once a driver has stopped, he can be seen and can be spoken to by the police constable. It is quite true, as one hon. Member said, that he may refuse to answer, but he cannot refuse to give his name and address or to produce his licence if required to do so. He may refuse to answer other questions, but he will at least be in a position where he can be viewed by the police constable.
No doubt, there will be some conversation, and the smell of his breath will be apparent to the police officer if he has been drinking. The moment the police officer smells his breath and the smell is of alcohol, the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that there is alcohol in his body within the meaning of the Clause. He can, therefore, ask for a breathalyser test to be taken. In my view, therefore, there is in the unamended Bill a power to have wholesale random tests.
When he spoke in Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that this was not so. He said that, though the power existed to stop, it must be used only for reasonable cause. I do not see that in the Clause. His opinion is as good as mine, of course, but neither of our opinions really counts for much because the question has not been decided by the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendments we are discussing.

Mr. Lyon: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that I am coming to the Amendment. The whole point at issue is the effect of the Bill unamended and as it would be if amended. If I am right in saying that the power to have wholesale random tests exists in the unamended Bill, what will be the effect on the public if the police use that power after the Bill has been passed, when people have been assured by the Press and by the Government that wholesale random checks have been dropped?
What will be the effect in this House when the first motorist is stopped, under Section 223 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and he is required to take a breathalyser test? There will be uproar in the


country. Relationships with the police will deteriorate because people will think that the police are exercising powers which they do not possess and acting in excess of their authority. The obloquy, for such it would be, will fall not on the Government and not on this House, but upon the poor policeman who was only doing his duty. That is the situation that I fear will come about if the Bill is passed unamended.

Mr. Bessell: With great respect, I feel that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point, although I may also be doing so. Surely, if the police can stop a vehicle without just cause—and I accept that that may be so—they have not automatically got the right then to make a breathalyser test under the terms of the Bill? Under the terms of the Bill, having stopped the car and spoken to the driver, they must have reasonable cause, and that is the difference.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Lyon: The difference is not substantial. In fact, it really does not exist. If the police speak to the driver and he has consumed drink and his breath smells of drink, they have reasonable cause. Under the old form of the Bill and under my Amendment, if they stop a vehicle and have the power to perform a complete random check but cannot smell anything on the driver's breath, does the hon. Member think that the police would ask him to take a breathalyser test? They just would not bother.

Mr. Ellis: Is not the whole point that my hon. Friend is trying to make that under the Bill as it is now the driver will feel that he has been tricked, whereas if it were amended he would know the position and the risk he was taking? If he feels that he has been tricked under the legislation in its present form, that will rebound against the police.

Mr. Lyon: I had hoped to make the point as effectively as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-west (Mr. Ellis) did. I am glad of his assistance. My whole point is that even as unamended the Bill creates the same power as the preceding Bill, when taken with Section 223 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. The result will therefore be that if the police use that power it will have the effect that my hon. Friend indicated.
I can see the amusement which is being caused on the Government Front

Bench by the suggestion that I might have conceded the case. But of course I have conceded the case—I have conceded that the power exists. What I have not conceded is the deterrent effect of the Bill in its present form as distinct from the Bill in the form in which I would like to see it.
What will happen now is that if the Amendment is rejected a Bill will be passed into law which people believe does not contain wholesale random checks. That is what has happened as a result of my right hon. Friend's change of mind. It is no use my right hon. Friend shaking her head about the matter. That is the impression which has been given to the people at large by the Press. The kind of indication that has been given to public opinion is that there is no wholesale random check.
If we are to take the interpretation of the law given by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Home Department, that before the power under Section 223 is used there must be reasonable cause, we come down to the ineffectiveness of the legislation to deter offences before they are committed. How will a police officer know that he has facts on which he could say that he has reasonable cause to suspect that there is alcohol in the body if he cannot stop the motor car? That is the whole point. He has to be able to stop the car to be able to decide whether the driver has alcohol in his body—I see one hon. Gentleman shaking his head—unless the driving of the motor car is so bad that that gives him away.
That is the kind of situation we are seeking to avoid, because there the man has created a danger on the road by the nature of his driving. By the Bill, we want to seek to stop him creating a danger, to deter him before he actually does it. That is why I would like to see wholesale random checks and why I believe that the Bill will be ineffective unless there are such checks. It is essential that we should stop people driving after taking drink.
My right hon. Friend has said that one of the most important objects of the Bill is to carry out a system of social education. I entirely agree that the point of the Bill is to try to educate people into refraining from driving after drinking.


But what will be the effect on the public if they believe that the only time they will be stopped by a police officer is when they are exhibiting manifest signs that they have been drinking, in other words, they think that as long as they can drive home without making it obvious that they have been drinking they will not be stopped? The obvious answer will be that they will risk going to the threshold—they will say that as long as they take a certain amount drink and drive home without incident that will be all right because no one will stop them unless their driving indicates that they have been taking drink.
The result will be that we shall have all the dangers of the present law, under which people think that they can take a certain amount of drink and get away with it. That is the situation we want to stop. That is the kind of social education on which we should be engaged. We should be telling people that it is never safe to drive when they have consumed any amount of alcohol, and that the Bill's object is to stop them doing so.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will think again, that she will make it plain not only by what she says in the House but by the terms of the Bill that there is a power for wholesale random checks, which can be made at any time on any road by a police officer in uniform, that a person who has been drinking can never be sure that he will not be stopped on the way home, and that as a result he will stop drinking before he has created a danger on the road or anywhere else.

Mr. William Molloy: It has been the practice of a number of hon. Members to indicate when they start to speak whether they have a personal interest. I wish to do the same. It is quite simple: I have no desire to be struck down by a motor car driven by a person who might have an amount of alcohol in his blood which will affect his judgment.
I remember my right hon. Friend saying quite rightly—I believe that it was during the Second Reading debate—that the object of the Bill was to try to achieve a dramatic change in social behaviour. I believe that if one is attempting to achieve a dramatic change

in social behaviour a certain amount of dramatic legislation is called for. When one is really trying to change social habits, the worst legislation is the mealymouthed form which leaves doubts and causes irritation. I can understand, and I am very conscious of, the arguments that we must try to find a balance between the amount of freedom we enjoy and the number of inhibitions we must place on people where they can be a danger to other folk.
Those matters should be mentioned when we are considering a question like this. They should be examined, and we must have the courage to come down on the side where decency is allowed to prevail. My hon. Friend's Amendment will achieve that. It seems to me that a number of arguments have been adumbrated that do not really oppose the proposals. Both in Committee and now they have generally concerned what it will cost to implement the idea, and what exactly is meant is "randomness".
"Randomness" is everywhere in this country where some poor soul is struck down and slain or maimed or hurt. That is what "randomness" means, and if we can get spot checks on the same scale as people are maimed and killed we shall be doing the nation a great service. I believe that the general public appreciate that.
Other hon. Members have said in the debate that they have spoken to police and other people over the summer and other holidays, and so have I. There will always be a minority who believe that there is some freedom in being able to take a risk as long as only they suffer. But this is not the argument in the case of the driver who has taken drink. One would not be too concerned perhaps if it could be guaranteed that the person who takes a little too much to drink is the only person who will suffer. Very often it is someone entirely innocent who suffers much more than the person who has taken drink. Therefore, the Amendment should be accepted by my right hon. Friend.
I come to the argument about a driver being stopped on the road. One evening, after the Committee had sat, I was returning home, in my constituency. Together with a number of other motorists, I was stopped at about half-past eleven


or twelve o'clock on the way to Western Avenue, which is very near Wormwood Scrubs. We had to give up a certain amount of our freedom to the police because a number of other citizens had taken the view that they had been wrongly incarcerated in Wormwood Scrubs, objected to their incarceration and had made good their escape. During the efforts which were made to recapture them a number of us were stopped on the road and we had to prove that we were not those who had been on the inside. I do not think that that was an unreasonable thing to do. But it could be argued that once those chaps had got outside it would be wrong for the police to try to find them again unless they knew precisely the car to stop or which house contained the people who had got out.
On the question of costs, I should like to remind the House of something which was said by Professor William Giffane, Director of the Road Injuries Research Group of the Birmingham Accident Hospital. He said:
The road now disables and kills many more people in England and Wales than all the infectious diseases".
I readily admit that this does not mean that all the people who have been maimed or killed suffered because of the actions of drivers who have taken drink. But I maintain that a large proportion of that number is attributable to people who have taken drink and have driven their vehicles when they should not have done so.
We should try to encourage people to change their social habits. This is catching on. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House may have had evidence of this. When we go to parties there is talk that so-and-so is not drinking because he has decided to drive. This is the sort of thing which we want to encourage. Individuals who take that attitude will not mind being challenged by the police, because they have nothing to fear. The object of the Amendment is not to trap anyone; it is to prevent social disaster. This is what it is about.
An hon. Member opposite spoke about the man in his car coming from the seaside with the "kids" in the back objecting to having to breathe into a breathaliser. I wonder whether the same man would object to the person behind him

who has nothing in the car but perhaps a bottle of whisky also taking the test, a man who later might be involved in an accident in which the man with the family in the back of the car lost a number of his children. These are the arguments which we have to balance.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will go back to her courageous original stand. After taking her stand, she said that she would examine all that had been said, and, to a degree, she changed her mind. There was nothing wrong in that. This is often a very courageous and necessary thing to do. However, when further evidence is provided which proves that one was right in the first place, that should be acknowledged. This is not, we hope, a Bill to trap or ensnare or take away freedom. It is a Bill which will change social habits for the better and make a contribution to reducing the slaughter on our roads and the misery which follows.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. William Price: I, too, declare my personal interest. First, I am a fairly prolific drinker, and, secondly, in the course of my employment as a reporter, I have had the misfortune to be sent to the scene of many hundreds of accidents involving people who have been killed or seriously injured. In the light of a long and unhappy experience, I am disappointed and disturbed that the Minister has seen fit not to introduce random tests.
We all know that it would have taken very considerable courage to stand up to some of the individuals and organisations who have exerted pressure. But the last thing which any right hon. or hon. Member would allege against the Minister is lack of courage. We must therefore look elsewhere.

Mr. Wilkins: "Who dunnit?"

Mr. Price: I have a suspicion, and perhaps no more than a suspicion, about "who dunnit". I suspect that to a large extent it was the R.A.C. and A.A. The fact that I belong to the R.A.C. does not affect my view that on this issue that organisation and the A.A. are becoming thoroughly discredited. Their attitude to the Bill was typical. They, and particularly the A.A., attacked the Minister for random tests.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We may discuss the attitude of the A.A. and R.A.C. not to the Bill as a whole but to the Amendment.

Mr. Price: I expected that. I am grateful that you let me go on as long as I did, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the day is coming when those organisations will take a long look at the accident figures and, perhaps, consult their consciences.

Mr. Carlisle: Would the hon. Gentleman make the same criticism of the police for their attitude?

Mr. Price: I may well have criticism to make of the police, but for rather different reasons. These two motoring organisations are concerned simply and solely with the narrow interests of their numbers. The police are concerned with the wider interests of pedestrians and motorists.
What I expect the Minister to say is this—and it has been touched on in an academic manner by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). I shall not follow exactly his words. I think that the Minister has hit on a political compromise. I believe that provision is already made for random tests. The Bill provides that a motorist may be arrested if
the constable has reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his body".
What more do we want? The tests will be random in relation to the public house customer because, whatever the Minister may say about hiding down the street, all that the police constable has to do, is to go within the vicinity of a public house and he will catch people who have alcohol in their bodies.
The case for random tests is overwhelming. I ask my right hon. Friend to disregard the juvenile antics of those who appear to object to every measure designed to inhibit the motorist. I am not referring now to hon. Members. It is fair to say that all Ministers of Transport have suffered. Few have suffered more than the last Conservative Minister of Transport, a man for whom I had considerable respect. He got more than his fair share. Indeed, I sometimes think that if he had been as effective at Central Office as he was at the Ministry, he would still be in charge.
The trouble is that the attitude of motorists basically is wrong. We are dealing with the minority of motorists— I stress "minority" because a considerable lot of motorists vote for me in my constituency—who will not pay any attention to persuasion. That is the problem. They believe that they are sacred and above the law. We know that that minority exists. One has only to drive around London in the evening to see the massed breaking of the motoring laws. I am bound to ask again how many of those motorists have had the devil instilled in them by drink.
I believe, as do other hon. Members, that the greatest task facing the Minister is that of educating the stupid, selfish minority of motorists in their responsibilities both to themselves and to other people who use the roads. Too many innocent people are being killed or maimed.
The Minister has made an excellent start. I feel that she has drawn back on perhaps the most vital principle in the Bill and I ask her to think again. Apart from the natural prejudice against any Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend has to contend with the fact that a woman invariably offends the masculine instincts of male drivers. Of those who drink and drive, I urge my right hon. Friend to offend them as much as she will. I hope that she will not be deterred.

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Lady has been under considerable pressure. I should like to come to her support and say that I hope she will stick to her guns. This is the second time that we have been able to debate this subject and it would be a great pity if at this late stage we were to change our minds.
I realise that deep feelings are involved, not only among back benchers, but also on the part of the Minister. The very fact, however, that with all her doubts she was able to change her mind between the original Bill and the present one should encourage hon. Members who have spoken and who still have doubts to realise that the Bill will be very effective at hitting at dangerous overdrinking and that, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has pointed out, there is a good deal of randomness still left in the Bill—indeed.


rather more than we think that it should have.
I believe that it is right to support the Minister's stand on Second Reading. It would be a mistake to restore the complete random nature of the test which existed in the first Bill. There are two main arguments against random checks, first because of practicability and, secondly, on the ground of lack of public support, to which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has referred.
As to practicability, the Minister was very frank with us on Second Reading and we appreciated that. She said that if it had been left to her, she would have preferred to retain in the Bill the provision for random checks. She also referred, however, to the scarcity of resources for dealing with enforcement. I have no doubt that the influence of her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made itself felt. Obviously, he does not live in an ivory tower. He would have to enforce the random checks and he must be well aware of the difficulties involved with a practical method. I hope that hon. Members who believe in random checks will face frankly the practical difficulties.
We are not legislating in a perfect or theoretical world. We are legislating in a practical world. We must, therefore, be sure that the laws we pass can be carried out and enforced easily and that they are likely to command general support and respect from the public.
From the practical point of view, even if random checks achieve a great deal and became widely popular, they would create vast problems in administration. Check posts would have to be set up, the offending cars parked and drivers with more than 80 milligrammes in their blood taken to a police station and subjected to a second test. It would all involve a great deal of work. Unless it were carried out on a huge scale, the chances of anyone being caught would be so slight that the deterrent effect would be almost negligible.

Mr. Wilkins: No.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member disagrees, but this argument of mine has been proved up to the hilt by the relative ineffectiveness of the spot checks on lorries. Unless this were carried on out

on a vast scale, it would not have the deterrent effect which hon. Members expect of it.
For what purpose would all that effort be done? It would be done for only 1·5 per cent. of motorists who, according to my information, drive with over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood. It would be like using a mackerel to catch a sprat. Quite apart from the practical limitations of random checks and the severe strain which they would impose on the resources of the police, a much more serious objection—and this is the second main argument against random checks—is that people have never thought it fair to give a policeman the right to check at random without suspicion an apparently law-abiding citizen.

Mr. Mapp: The hon. Member has quoted statistics, in which I am very much interested. He said that 1·5 was the percentage of motorists who drive with over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood. Would the hon. Member be good enough to tell us the authority for that figure.

Mr. Galbraith: I may have made a mistake, but my note states that this was quoted at c. 672 of HANSARD of 10th February, 1966, from the Grand Rapids Report; but I may have made an error. I am not at this moment able to verify the figure.
The Minister recognises that if she is to get the change in social habits which we all want, it is no good simply changing the law. She must also get the support of the public. To get the support of the public, it is necessary for the law to appear fair. Whether we like it or not, the idea of random checks has never appeared fair to the public.
I know that the right hon. Lady has been under great pressure concerning Christmas, to which many references have been made, although in a Parliamentary Answer which I received she stated that she did not think there was any reason to suspect that drink had played a greater part than normal. I agree, however, that even in normal years the situation is extremely serious.
I sympathise with the Minister in the dilemma in which she was placed at Christmas, feeling the way that she does, but I think that if she sticks to her guns, as I hope she will, she will have decided


rightly. She is, after all, a politician, and politics is the art of the possible. It is a radical enough change in the Bill to have created the objective standard without trying to extend the Bill to include completely random checks as well. Hon. Members who support the Amendment because they fear that without random checks the Bill will be of little use have misjudged entirely the strength of the Bill. They will find that the introduction of the objective test will result in a considerable stiffening of the law.
I know that this is a very emotional subject, about which many hon. Members feel strongly, and I realise that, theoretically, the strength of their feeling may be justified. Practically, however, there is very little or no case for their point of view.
The existing Bill, without random checks, will achieve a great deal. I therefore urge them, after the long debates which we have had already, to accept what the Minister said on Second Reading—I hope that she will say the same today—because her views are largely the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, if she has been convinced, they ought to be convinced as well.

7.0 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I have very great sympathy with the purposes behind my hon. Friends' Amendments. I fully recognise the sincerity and the passion with which they have spoken. They want to see the new offence created under the Bill enforced effectively. I hope that they will accept that I do as well.
I have had, as I expect other hon. Members have, a very large number of letters in recent weeks urging me to reintroduce random tests, particularly since Christmas. I would have called it a lobby, but I did not want to make it sound unreal and sinister. I know that the people who wrote were genuinely concerned with the problem of road casualties and the element of drink in those casualties. I have personally read what seemed to be hundreds of letters. They were from people putting forward their views in a way that I could only thoroughly respect. I agree with them,

and I agree with my hon. Friends who have moved the Amendments.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) on whether or not there is an issue of principle at stake on random tests. I do not believe that there is. I have never accepted, as I have said time and time again, that for us to have completely random tests would be an unwarranted interference with individual rights. That is not my motive in having proposed to the House, as I did on Second Reading and as I must do again tonight, the procedure for enforcement which is outlined in the Bill. It is not the principle of individual liberty which worries me.
I want to assure my hon. Friends that I am not running away from a previous decision at the behest of the A.A. and R.A.C. Those two organisations would have been flattered by some of the suggestions that somehow I had come under their thumb. It was not accurate to accuse me of pandering to those views. I did not pander to them on the 70 m.p.h. speed limit, and I would not pander to them on random tests. After all, a lot of the people who wrote asking me to re-introduce random tests were themselves motorists. The poll figures do not justify the belief that there is a division between the motorist and the non-motorist. There is a remarkable tally in those figures on the drink and drive issue between the sample of all members of the community and that purely from the motoring community.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) paid me the compliment of having a lot of courage, but said that he thought it had deserted me at the behest of Mr. Durie. But I have not been frightened away.
I have given the matter serious thought, and I want to start with the point that our common aim is to deter. What we should be discussing is the best way of doing that. One of the biggest deterrents of the Bill is the creation of the new offence itself. No one should underestimate that. What deters is the certainty of conviction. What has led to the lax attitude towards drink and driving in the past is that motorists knew that they could probably get away with it in the courts. A man could be found reeling about in the road with a level of more


than 150. People have even been acquitted having been found to have as high a level as 200.
In a situation like that, the whole attitude is wrong, and the revolutionary step is the creation of the new technical offence. As a result of the tests provided for under the Bill, once a motorist is found to have exceeded the level, there cannot be any argument, and the penalties are severe. As the House knows, I have stood by automatic disqualification for the offence, and I shall not be easily frightened off that.
The second point which I have tried to make clear in answer to those who have written to me and in all the speeches which I have made is that they have not quite understood the extent of the cases which will be caught under the Bill. The powers are very wide, and I do not think that my hon. Friends have understood quite how wide they are. At more than one stage during the debate, I found myself a little confused to know what was the content of their complaints. I could not make out whether they were complaining that the random element in the Bill was too wide, as hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) argued, or whether it did not exist at all.
One of the accusations which have been made against me is that, to some extent, I am misleading the public, because I am pretending that I have abandoned the random principle, when there it is enshrined in the new power. I cannot accept that I have misled the public. Both on Second Reading and in a speech which I made on 2nd January about the number of Christmas accidents, I made it very clear. I stressed then and I stress again that the proposals now before Parliament contain an important random element. The range of circumstances in which a driver can be required to take a breath test is very wide.
I went on in my speech to say:
Just think what involvement in a moving traffic offence covers.
It does not have to be dangerous driving. The argument of some of my hon. Friends that, by the time a man has committed a moving traffic offence, it would be too late because he was on the threshold of an accident is to exaggerate the position. I went on:

It can mean crossing a white line. Or it can mean exceeding speed limits—something which drivers do every day as a matter of course. And if a driver commits such an offence, then he can be tested—without there having to be any sign that he has taken alcohol.
That is a very important random element, but it is one which is concentrated, and the reason for seeking to concentrate it, as I have under these proposals, is twofold. One is the principle of acceptability. Just because there is an important random element still and just because we are moving into a revolutionary new concept of the law about drink and driving with a new offence which people will find strange at first and which carries very severe and automatic penalties, it helps to get the public to accept the new law if the random element is concentrated and not spread over people who may be going about their business never having taken a drink and certainly not remotely within range of committing a moving traffic offence.
The motoring organisations said to me and I shall be frank with the House— "Look, we think that a section of motorists"—and I think that it is probably 50–50 for and against the random test—"will feel outraged if they are to be stopped when there is no association at all with them of any kind of misdemeanour or misbehaviour as a motorist". But if a chap crosses a moving white line—[An HON. MEMBER: "He will be drunk."] He will be in those circumstances. If a person drives contrary to the traffic rules, he will have only himself to blame if the breath test is slapped on him, whether he has had a drink or not. Equally, if the police stop a car in the normal way under Section 223 of the 1962 Act—and this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for York— in a crime chase, or for any other reason which may be appropriate, and smell alcohol on someone's breath, again he will not be able to complain, because there will be at least some indication that he might be above the stipulated level. He will have had a drink, and be driving, and in those circumstances, whether or not he has committed an offence, he will not be able to grumble too much.
That was the kind of argumentation involved and it was strongly enforced


by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Carlisle) who asked for what he called the logistics. This is another consideration in a situation in which we know enforcement is the key. So many people are proposing new safety measures of one kind or another, all of which are excellent but all of which depend on our having an effective level of enforcement. This is it. We can all pass ideal laws, but if people feel that they are not going to bite they will not take a great deal of notice of them.
The Home Office estimates that the number of occasions on which the police stop vehicles, or are at the scene of an accident, is between 1½ million and 2 million a year. The number of police vehicles—that is cars or motor cycles—which will carry the breath-testing device—because this is to be operated by mobile police—will be about 9,000. These will be carried by the police on a wide range of duties, not only on traffic duties. This means, inevitably, that there will be a greater concentration of testing than if we were to spread the equivalent number of vehicles—we might not have all these vehicles for random tests, but let us assume that we have an equivalent number of vehicles—among the 14 million people in this country who hold driving licences. These, then, are the logistics. At least the same number of police vehicles carrying the breath-testing device will be operating the tests for a smaller number of possible offenders.
7.15 p.m.
There will, therefore, inevitably be a larger proportion of positive results, and the more positive results there are from testing, and the more publicity they are given, the greater will be the deterrent. This will flow over to people who have not got into one of the three categories mentioned in the Clause, because no one can be certain that one day he will not be caught in this group. Nobody can be certain that one day he will not commit a traffic offence. Nobody can be certain that he will not be stopped in a casual police check, though in that situation he will not be tested unless he has had a drink. It is the man who has had a drink that we want to get. We do not want to deter the chairwoman of the local abstinence union. She does not need deterring. The benefits of the deterrent will come from people knowing

that there has been a high proportion of positive results from the testing.

Mr. Molloy: It seems that my right hon. Friend is reaching the stage of supporting us, by saying that we cannot select a certain part of the population. The only alternative is to carry out random tests.

Mrs. Castle: I am not saying that we cannot select a certain part of the population. That is what we are doing under the Bill. Under the Bill a person will have to have committed a moving traffic offence, or be stopped for some reason by the police. He will have to have had a drink so that the policeman can tell from his breath that he has had one. Only the policeman will be able to say that the chap has had one or two drinks, and then proceed to test him. Apart from accidents, in which it is an important part, the breath test will be applied automatically and this provides a third possibility.
It is the deterrent that we want to establish, and I ask the House to think about this. I ask the House not to assume that we have thrown the completely random tests out of the window because we are afraid to deter. I am genuinely exercised in my mind about where we will get to, and how we will get the maximum deterrent. It seems to me that some of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends are a bit confused. I know that they probably think my arguments are confused, but there we are equal-equal. It shows that there are legitimate grounds for disagreeing about how this will work out.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) began by complaining that we said we could not automatically test everybody outside a public house. He asked, why not? He said that that was the place to catch them. Fair do's, but that is the opposite of the argument about the completely random test principle, and this was made clear by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department during the Second Reading debate when he said that he did not think that the police would generally stop vehicles outside public houses because the mouth alcohol difficulty would be very much in existence there. That is one of the problems, because we know that one can get


a false reading if the test is taken too soon after the alcohol has been consumed. My hon. and learned Friend went on to say that one does not want to stop the police from ever asking for a breath test outside a public house. Thus, we have struck this note somewhere between the completely random test principle and the relationship of any test to the suspicion of alcohol. I suggest to my lion. Friends that it may be we have got a better balance as a result. It could be that we will have a higher degree of deterrent.
All of us are operating on new territory. The way in which some of our arguments cancel each other out shows that none of us can be completely dogmatic, or say, "This is the perfect way; you have adopted the imperfect way and therefore you have run away." We have to learn as we go along and see what impact the new powers will make. Of course, we can always watch the situation—and we will, very closely—to make sure that it is biting as we want it to bite—

Sir H. Harrison: rose—

Mr. Ellis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Lady gave way to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis).

Mr. Ellis: Before my right hon. Friend concludes her argument, how does she think this will deter the supremely confident gentlemen who have a large amount of beer every night and are sure that they can drive home, having got away with it 999 times before and who think that they do not make mistakes—until, one night, the crunch comes? What will we do? Is not the completely random check the answer?

Mrs. Castle: It is an even bet whether that person will he caught under my hon. Friend's proposals or under mine. The way to deter him is to catch him. There is more doubt that, under a completely random test for 14 million people, he will be caught on his way home, but the feeling that there is an odds-on chance that one will be caught is an important element in the deterrence.
This is what worried me over the completely random principle, that it is spread too wide to get a high return from the

testing. If there are negative returns, the gentlemen whom my hon. Friend mentioned will be even more confident—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the Chair and the Official Reporters if the right hon. Lady will address the Chair.

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to help my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: Surely the point is that the over-confident driver who has been drinking too much is certain that he will never commit a motoring offence because he is such a good driver and therefore is certain that he will never be caught. Our aim in the Bill must surely be to prevent people drinking too much in the first place; if a driver knows that he might be caught in any circumstances, it is more likely to have a deterrent effect than my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Mrs. Castle: If he is over-confident, he is probably confident that he will not be stopped in a random test. There is a possibility of his being stopped by the police anyway under my proposals. If the police do stop him under my proposals, they will breath-test him because he is the sort of fellow who will be positively reeking of drink.
The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for York went in a circle. He said, "There is no real difference between these proposals and mine: do you mean to say that, under the total random breath test, if the police stop somebody, they would breath-test him if there were no suspicion of alcohol? Of course they would not." So what is his complaint about me—in some way that I am deceiving the public?
But I stand here to undeceive the public, to tell them that the powers are very wide and that they are in great danger, under my proposals, of facing a breath test, so they had better be careful—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have five interventions at once. Hon. Gentlemen must restrain themselves a little.

Mr. William Price: I wanted to assure my right hon. Friend that I was not so bold as to say that she was being seduced


by the motoring organisations or anybody else. What is a police constable's right under paragraph (a)? If he sees me drinking seven or eight pints of beer, he knows that I have alcohol in my body. Can he now "do me" or does he have to wait until I commit a motoring offence? This is what I am not clear about.

Mrs. Castle: After all, a police constable can still stop a vehicle if he thinks that the driver's ability to drive is impaired.—[Interruption.] Certainly. I must conclude now. We have a good deal more of the Bill to deal with.
I agree that it entirely depends on how these proposals are enforced. It has always depended on this, whether it was completely random or concentratedly random, as my proposal is. Of course, we shall watch the situation closely. I was asked what instructions had been given to chief constables. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand, however, that he will make it clear to chief constables that, in applying these tests, we shall want a random element included—that is to say, that they should not just wait for a suspicion but should apply the breath test in cases of moving traffic offences, even where there is no suspicion of alcohol having been consumed. That is our intention.
We shall be getting regular and frequent records from the police on the tests and their results. If it appears that those tests are not giving the results we want and are not acting as a deterrent or biting in the way we want, we shall, of course, have to come back. I would be the first to come back to tell the House that I did not think that the Bill went far enough, and that we must now move to the wider random checks. However. I suggest to my hon. Friends that, in the meantime, we should give these new proposals a chance—perhaps the results may surprise us all.

Mr. Mapp: Two speeches have disappointed me today. The first was that of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). I followed his reasoning but with his background of road safety, I regretted his conclusion very much. However, I accept that his reasoning is probably just as sincere as mine.

The second speech is the one which we have just heard. With that, I am bitterly disappointed. Throughout the Minister's speech, one could see the conflict between principle and expediency.
I ask myself the simple question which hundreds of people have asked, "What is your House going to do with those scores of motorists standing outside public houses between 8 and 10 o'clock at night?". There is no doubt about it; this is the 64-dollar question before the House and there is nothing to be gained by political expedience in trying to argue that there should be three sets of guidelines—one a moving traffic offence, the second an accident, and the third some other cause.
The public want to know, if a motorist has been seen inside a public house for three hours by a police constable and then moves across to a public car park, whether the policeman cannot, under this Bill, do a thing about it. I think that it is this motorist—

Mr. Bessell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's argument is wrong. Clause 2 provides that any constable who has a suspicion that a person will drive a car and has taken any drink whatsoever may require him to take a breathalyser test. That is the point of the Bill.

Mr. Mapp: I am no lawyer, but some of us who were in the Committee know the conflict between lawyers on this point—between the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), for example. The main thing is the Regulations from the Home Office to chief constables. Those of us who were in Committee were told the nature of those Regulations and we were given to understand that they were quite clear—that chief constables will be inhibited from ever providing what most of us would regard as a random check, and that it will be confined to the area where an offence might have been committed.
7.30 p.m.
I could not be taken into the Lobby in support of the words contained in the Bill at the moment. I would, however, enthusiastically go into the opposite Lobby, and indeed I have been asked during today by four or five hon. Members—some of them are not present now—about whether the sponsors of the


Amendment would care to take it to a Division. My own opinion at this stage would be that it should not be taken to a Division. This is one of those problems where politics becomes involved in the sense that the subject has no relationship to politics in the normal way.
But, as frankly and fairly as I can, I say to my right hon. Friend that, if she cannot see her way to making some change pertaining to the operation of the Bill, I and some other hon. Members will not be able to follow her, in the certain knowledge that, within two or three years time, as the hon. and gallant Member for Eye more or less indicated, we shall be back at this same Clause amending it. Why should we have to wait two or three years in order to put it right?
I am not prepared to go into the Government Lobby knowing full well that the time and tide have arrived. I well remember the story of 1960 and 1962, when another Minister—a first-class man—was trying to do the same sort of thing. He was thwarted by his own back benchers. He had to face the same Conservative point of view as she has tonight. I am not surprised, but my right hon. Friend should have taken courage from the fact that, behind her, is a House which wants her to do the right thing for the 1970s. But she is only doing it by half.

Mr. Wilkins: I regret my intervention, for I notice that the House seems to be getting a little restless, but my right hon. Friend should clearly understand that many of her hon. Friends are bitterly disappointed with the way in which she has treated this Amendment. She is quite right in saying that some of her colleagues on this side of the House are confused. We are not only confused about the terms of the Bill. There is a doubt in our minds, which she has not explained away, although she was asked to do so. It concerns Clause 2(1) which says
… if the constable has reasonable cause—(a) to suspect him of having alcohol in his body;
That passage ends with a semi-colon. Surely that indicates that this will be an offence and that the constable will be able to carry out a random test on the grounds of suspicion that the person has alcohol in his body. My right hon. Friend

has not explained to us the exact position here, although she was asked to. We should have a clear explanation from her about what this provision means.

Mr. Fowler: Would not my hon. Friend agree that we should have a clear indication of the precise powers of the police under Section 223 of the 1962 Act? My hon. Friend the under-Secretary of State said of the Section in Committee:
I should not like to say that it necessarily follows from that Act that the police may stop people without reason. I do not want to be dogmatic about this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 1st December, 1966; c. 147.]

Mr. Wilkins: There is a lot in this Clause about which we should have more precise guidance. The information so far is extremely imprecise. But I am now only concerned with the Amendment which seeks to alter the wording.
My right hon. Friend, referring to the attitude of some of her colleagues on this side of the House, said that she wanted us to understand that she was extremely sympathetic to the views we hold. Sympathy will not solve the problem of death on our roads. Only action designed to deter will do that. I believe that the Home Office has been mistaken about this point entirely. My right hon. Friend has quoted to us an estimate of the number of motorists who will be picked up even under the Clause as it stands and who will have breath tests. But we have had no sort of estimate of the number of motorists who would be deterred from taking intoxicating drink simply because they knew that they would be subject to a possible random check.
We in this House hear a lot about deterrents of one kind or another, and surely this is one deterrent which will be of some value. My right hon. Friend, in defending her change of view, talked about our being confused, but many of us cannot understand how she has been able to make such a volte face and wonder who persuaded her to do so. My right hon. Friend denies that the motoring organisations were responsible, and I hope that she is right, because I am a member of both and they have not my authority to put pressure on her to abandon the random tests. We plead with her to think again about this. If she cannot make a change in this House,


let her do so when the Bill goes to another place.
I am sure that the vast majority of public opinion in the country believes that when the Bill is enacted it will deter the motorists from drinking. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that if one only crosses a white line one is likely to be picked up for a motoring offence and at that point the policeman will be able to ask one to breathe into a bag. But anyone who drives a car knows that the offence of crossing the white line takes place dozens of times in the morning before any public house has opened or any drink has been consumed. It happens all the time. The police will not pick motorists up for this sort of offence.
The net result of all this is that the police will be less involved in taking checks. The observations which my right hon. Friend made on 10th February, 1966, were precise and concise in expressing the feelings that I and many of my hon. Friends and, I hope, some of my right hon. Friends, have. We cannot understand why she has changed her mind. Of course, she may have been frightened by the threat of the then shadow Minister of Transport who has now gone to the House of Lords. On 10th February, 1966, he said:
… If the Minister is unfortunate enough to lose her Bill as a result of Dissolution, we ourselves, when we come into power, will go on with this Bill with the one important Amendment that we shall knock out the random check."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th February, 1966; c. 3.]
Many of us thought that at least the hon. and gallant Member for Eye would remain on our side, but in view of his attitude today one wonders whether the promise of the noble Lord is finding a reaction on the benches opposite in that they must follow the line he then laid down.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) is wrong if he thinks that the police do not want this. Even in this House, observations have been made to me that the one person we seem to have left out of account in all our debates on this subject is the policeman who has to do the job. The police feel that their hands would be strengthened if they had the power to take random spot checks. I

urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter. To whom was she referring when she used the word "we" when she said, "We have come to the conclusion" about it being less invidious?

Mrs. Castle: The Government.

Mr. Wilkins: Then this matter has been decided at Cabinet level. I am not in a position to question a decision of this nature, if it is a Government decision. I can only express the hope that the Government will think again about their attitude to this matter and will see wisdom before the Bill becomes law in view of the strong public opinion that exists on this issue.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. Mrs. Butler.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: My right hon. Friend has referred to the importance of having a deterrent to prevent people from drinking and driving. The Clause and the Amendment prove that exhortation has not been a sufficient deterrent and I suggest that, with the best will in the world, the social pressures on people to drink before driving are so strong that the deterrents that exist have failed to prevent drunken driving.
At parties, and particularly at pre-Christmas office gatherings, people will continue to drink when they are under these social pressures—that is, unless we can make the deterrent absolutely firm. Perhaps we will never make it absolutely firm; so that the least we should do is to make it as firm as we can.
What will happen if the Bill is passed in its present form and without the Amendment? At private parties people who say, "I am not going to drink because I am driving" will be told by their friends, "You will be all right. You will not be seen coming out of a public house or a club and nobody will know that you have been drinking. You will not commit a traffic offence, so you might as well drink". This temptation will face people who might otherwise not drink and drive if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: What makes the hon. Lady think that the police cannot see people leaving public houses?

Mrs. Butler: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I was referring to people drinking at private parties. They will be leaving private houses and the police will not suspect that they have been drinking in the same way as they will be able to watch people leaving clubs or public houses. The vast majority of parties held before Christmas are private affairs and there will be a temptation for people to drink before driving. Unless random tests are introduced in the way the Amendment suggests people will go on drinking at Christmas and New Year parties and will think that they have a good chance of not being caught.
I urge my right hon. Friend, who has taken a courageous step, to go one step further and accept the principle of the Amendment. The real issue is not how many drunken drivers the police may pick up but how many drivers we can prevent from reaching that drunken condition. That is the whole point of the Amendment, which I hope she will now accept.

Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have supported the Amendment. The debate has been a valuable one in that the deep concern and strong feeling that exists on this issue has been made clear to my right hon. Friend.
7.45 p.m.
The core of the matter is the present social attitude of people. This has been made clear in the debate. As a layman, I confess to being unable to follow the legal labyrinth of interpretation placed on this and other Measures. I still maintain that an explicit provision which provides for the random testing of drivers would be simpler to all concerned. The motorists and the police alike would be clear about what we have in mind. There would be less confusion and misunderstanding than will be the position in view of the various interpretations which have been placed in the Bill's provisions.
However, I recognise that my right hon. Friend is breaking new ground with the Bill and that this is a highly contentious and difficult sphere. I hope that she will give further thought to the matter and may possibly even arrange for a suitable Amendment to be introduced in another place. Having expressed that

hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, Amendment No. 3, in line 29, to leave out 'preliminary' and to insert 'breath'.
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if, with this Amendment, we also discuss the following Amendments: Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 21.

Mr. Speaker: At sudden notice, that seems to make sense, if it is convenient to the Opposition.

Mr. Carlisle: It sounds an excellent proposition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Taverne: Each of these Amendments is phrased in exactly the same terms. They are all concerned with leaving out the word "preliminary" and inserting the word "breath". Although we are discussing a considerable number of Amendments, I hope that they will occasion somewhat less discussion than the last Amendment.
This series of Amendments simply changes the "preliminary test" to a "breath test" throughout the Bill. The reason is because at present the Bill refers to the screening breath test as a "preliminary test". This was a convenient description because no provision was made for the use of a breath-testing device other than for screening purposes. By the new Clause, which the House has accepted, we have provided for a breath test to be taken after the laboratory test in certain circumstances. It would, therefore, no longer be appropriate to refer to it solely as a "preliminary test", and the phrase "breath test" would be simpler and more convenient.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 2, line 31 to leave out 'having alcohol in his body' and to insert:
'committing an offence under section 1(1) of this Act or section 6 of the principal Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 59, in page 3, line 33, at end insert:
'other than an offence under section 6 of the principal Act'.

Mr. Galbraith: By this Amendment we are seeking to word the Bill in such a way that before a constable applies the breath test he must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence against the Bill has been committed. I gather that in other branches of the law it is normal procedure for the police to act on suspicion either than an offence has been committed or is about to be committed, but as this Bill is drafted the police are being given powers to demand a breath test when they have no reason at all to suppose than an offence has been committed. This seems to be rather a new departure in our legal system, and amounts to a very severe infringement on the liberty of the subject which does not seem to be justified by the nature of the offence. It is bound to lead to resentment and to friction with the police.
It is all very fine for us, sitting here in the House of Commons, to say that it is reasonable, but my feeling is that the chap in the car will not feel exactly as we do. Whatever the right hon. Lady says, as she did on Second Reading, about the reasonableness of the police—with which, to a certain extent, I agree—even Homer nods, and every one makes a mistake from time to time. Under this Bill, the police have the power, if they see a man coming from the pub or leaving a cocktail party, to pounce on him, to use the Minister's words. She said that they would not do so, but they have the power to do so, and to apply the test even though the man concerned may only have gone into the pub to buy cigarettes or at the cocktail party may have had only a soft drink. The police have the power, and sooner or later they will use it in circumstances where they should not use it.
It was because of the wide power given to the police, and not because of any sympathy with people who drink too much, that very considerable concern was expressed in all quarters of the Standing Committee. This concern was recognised by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who said that he understood the disquiet—that was the very word he used—and would try to find a form of words to meet it. On the strength of that undertaking I withdrew my Amendment. Alas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is nothing on the Order Paper.
The Government's main argument, so far as I have been able to make out from our debates to date, is that unless the police have the right to apply the test to any one whom they think has been drinking at all we will be back to the old position where prosecutions took place only when there were 150 milligrammes of alcohol in the blood. This was the fairly constant refrain from the Government spokesmen on Second Reading; but with great respect I do not think that this really is a very good argument or that it fits in with the facts.
It is well known that drivers arouse the suspicion of the police when they have much less than 150 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood—I do not think than anyone would deny that—but because of the difficulty under the present law of proving impairment in a clinical sense when a driver has less than 150 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood, no action is taken below that figure. The course of events is that the constable's suspicions are aroused. He takes the driver in and finds that he has, say, 100 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood, but because there is no definite evidence of impairment at this level he has to let the driver go. There are grounds for suspicion, but there are not grounds for conviction. That is what is wrong today.
That is the situation with which the Amendment seeks to deal, but it goes no further. According to our Amendment, on the constable's suspicions being aroused he applies the breath test, and if the reading is over 80 milligrammes an offence has been committed. The difference between us and the Government is that we wish the constable's suspicions to have been aroused first of all while the Government wish the constable to be able to act without suspicion. I am perfectly convinced that if it had been possible under the present law to get convictions against people who, in the eyes of the police, were impaired and had aroused their suspicions, we would not have had this Bill today. What has been wrong has not been a failure on the part of the police to suspect—they do that easily enough—but a failure to he able to prove that their suspicions are justified. Yet the introduction of the objective standard of 80 milligrammes of alcohol in the blood solves that problem, and it is


not necessary to go further and allow testing without suspicion.
I therefore just cannot understand why the Minister insists on powers so wide as almost to get back to the old position of random checks, with all the dislocation and wasted effort they would cause and all the hostilities with the public they would arouse, when, from a practical point of view—and this is what is important—our Amendment would produce a situation which if it existed now would mean that there was no need for this new legislation. The right hon. Lady is going very much further than she needs to go, and that is always a mistake in politics and in everything else. Even at this late hour, therefore, I urge the Government to think again very seriously. If they do not like the words I have thought out in our Amendment, and even though they may not have been able to provide others for themselves, they might, when the Bill gets to another place, have another shot at it.

Mr. Taverne: I must very strongly urge the House to resist the Amendment, because in our view it would very gravely weaken the enforcement of the Bill. It would mean that the Bill would simply create an objective standard but not enable it to be enforced on as wide a scale as we would like.
The issue before the House is whether or not a constable should have powers to ask for the breath test only if there are visible signs of impairment, or should be able to do so, as we propose, when he has some grounds for suspecting that there is alcohol in the body. The argument advanced in Committee is still that which I must put now. At 80 milligrammes there are not necessarily any signs of impairment. A constable therefore does not know whether or not someone is committing an offence. He does not know whether someone has a blood alcohol level of 80, or 50, or 30 or 100—because even at 100 there may be no visible signs of impairment.
If he has no such grounds for asking for the breath test to be applied, and if the person refuses to take a test and the constable therefore has no reasonable grounds for arrest, he may be subject to an action for unlawful arrest, or the whole procedure for breath testing and exacting the laboratory test cannot be

implemented. Therefore, no constable would act unless he saw visible outward signs of impairment. One would then be back to the position where prosecutions would not be brought because constables would not ask for the breath test to be taken unless someone had at least 150 milligrammes of alcohol in the blood.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the police never have suspicions, never bring a man in under 150 milligrammes? I thought the position was that they often have suspicions when the level is below that figure but that once they get him in and test him, if they find that he has less than that they do not proceed because they cannot prove the offence. That is the position.

Mr. Taverne: There may well be cases where the level is less than 150 milligrammes, but the argument would be whether or not the police suspicions were justified—whether the person's speech was slurred; whether his eyes were glazed; whether he was unsteady in his gait; whether the car weaved about on the road; whether or not there were reasonable grounds for supposing that someone was impaired in his driving by reason of drink or driving with more than 80 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood. This would inevitably follow. Therefore, in order to avoid a possible cause of action for unlawful arrest, the constable would not act, unless he was pretty sure that the person had more than 80 milligrammes, that is unless there were visible signs of impairment. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can get round that argument. His Amendment will gravely weaken the force of the Bill.
It is true that in the Committee the Amendment that was then moved was withdrawn after I undertook to see whether it was possible to find words which without undesirably limiting the powers of the police to stop vehicles would meet the disquiet expressed that the police might stop drivers solely to see whether someone had been drinking. This aspect was carefully considered, but in the end it was not found possible to produce such an alteration in the Bill. Indeed, I warned the hon. Member that I thought it extremely unlikely that we could meet his wishes.


8.0 p.m.
It was not possible to do so for two reasons. First, it would not be possible to find a workable set of provisions and, secondly, it would not be desirable on grounds of principle. One difficulty is that of drafting a statutory limitation to the constable's general and very necessary power to stop vehicles. The limitation in substance would be valueless because it would not be possible for anyone but the constable to know why he had stopped a vehicle. Suppose there were a form of words by which a constable could not stop a vehicle solely to see whether the driver had been drinking. What would be the effect if he suspected that the driver were ill, were tired or drunk and, having stopped the car, he thought that the driver was drunk? Would the constable then have offended against the statutory limitation or not? The provision could not prevent the constable stopping the driver in those circumstances.
If one looks at the proposal more closely, one finds that it is not only impracticable but not desirable. It is unlikely that in general the police would set traps outside a public house partly because of their relations with the public and partly because when asking for a breath test in those circumstances the amount of mouth alcohol would make it inaccurate at that stage. It would be wrong if it were impossible for a policeman ever to stop anyone outside a public house because he had cause to believe he had been drinking. There is not only a practical difficulty but also a difficulty of principle. I apologise to the hon. Member for not being able to find the form of words to meet his disquiet, but I strongly urge the House to reject this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 2, line 32, to leave out paragraph (b).
In essence, this is the Amendment which I moved in Committee. The reasons why I am presenting it again this evening are, with only one addition, identical to those I gave in Committee, but I shall reverse the order and begin with the new reason. The new reason is that the Under-Secretary, as he has

just confessed, has not fulfilled the undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) and myself to look again at the possibility of defining this matter more precisely. The statement implied at the time that he was at least partially convinced by our arguments that the definition of "moving traffic offences" on which the whole structure of pseudorandom tests was based was ridiculously and unnecessarily wide. I am pleased that the Minister herself stressed not an hour ago the width of this provision.
The Under-Secretary attempted to deny that this Clause was an attempt to reintroduce random tests by the back door. He said that it was to cover the case in which the police do not—I emphasise "not"—have reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has been drinking but in which the nature of the offence leads him to think that there might be an impairment of his ability to drive through drink. That statement quite clearly implied many occasions on which a policeman will have reasonable cause to suspect that a driver has been drinking. By common consent of everyone in this House, and I should think everyone in this country, a driver whose ability to drive is impaired is a dangerous driver, and we are seeking to limit the amount of dangerous driving. If it were possible we would eliminate it, but under present conditions we would succeed only by eliminating motor vehicles.
Unfortunately, so many of these laws appear to become ends in themselves. Because in this sphere more than in most they are rough and ready instruments, they deserve less than most to become ends in themselves. My fear is that if the Bill passes on to the Statute Book without this Amendment we shall have to put in yet another intermediate criterion—yet another rough and ready criterion—in this case between the citizen driver and the final criterion by which he should seek to judge himself and by which he should, so far as possible, be judged. That criterion is not on this question of alcohol but on the final criterion of safe driving.
We should look more closely at the effect of this Clause if it is unamended. There is a vast range of driving offences which might be committed by a driver who has had one drink and, say, 20 milligrammes in his bloodstream and has


suffered no impairment by the definition which the Government—not only of this country but of the United States, which only in the last few days has set the limit at 100 millilitres—have set and who may be said not to have his judgment impaired. My argument is that most of these offences have no relationship to the ability to drive. They may have some relationship to the ability to read and to understand the Road Traffic Act.
The figures are important. The total number of offences alleged in 1965 were 1·47 million. This is the basis of the law's operation. The Minister stressed this in emphasising the width of the basis of the tests. Those 1·47 million alleged offences mean that a policeman stopped the owner of a car in each case. Prosecutions amount to 1·18 million brought before the courts and of those 1·12 million were found guilty. From those figures I am sure most hon. Members would willingly exclude offences of dangerous driving, 11,000, drunken driving, 9,000, and even careless driving, 280,000. No one driving carelessly can have any real complaint, but what about speed limit offences, which amounted to 217,000 in 1965. Were those in all circumstances careless?
The speed limit legislation of the country at the moment is about as obsolete as a model T Ford. Therefore, speeding offences should not be included in the basis which the Minister is adopting for the new structure of pseudorandom tests. I should not be prepared to argue this particular point, because I know how ready some hon. Members opposite are to use the basis of speed limit offences for the extension of random tests. But can any policeman have the right which this Measure will confer to assume impairment of ability to drive when he is involved with someone whose stationary vehicle has defective brakes, defective steering, defective tyres, is emitting dangerous smoke, has dirty glass or windscreens, is improperly equipped, and a host of other so-called "moving" offences? The only thing about these offences which moves is the policeman.
The Minister has refused to alter this Clause because, despite what she said, it reintroduces the principle of random

tests even if the randomness is of dubious statistical parentage. At least she might do it openly. I see that rather than doing that she has now left the Chamber. The British public will resent these powers bitterly unless—this is a very open question—they are used with the greatest discretion. As in so many other spheres, the British public has very little idea of what will hit it when the legislation reaches the Statute Book.
Tyranny is easily recognised and resisted when it comes in boldly in search of naked power for its own sake, but this is a much more insidious and dangerous variety. It hides in the small print of worthy Acts of Parliament produced by worthy people for worthy motives, and those who oppose the minor tyranny lay themselves open to the charge that they are opposed to the major worthy objectives, that they are not on the side of the angels. I am not opposed to the major objectives of this Bill, which in this case involves an altogether new attempt to reconcile the liberty of the subject to drive freely without hindrance and the obligation of the subject to consider the lives and safety of others when he does so, but I am totally opposed to an accumulation of minor tyrannies which wholly satisfy the immediate criteria but only partially, if at all, satisfy the ultimate criteria. They do so by inflicting on the subject a degree of interference which he or she, in my view, will find intolerable, and I am quite certain that the Government will appreciate this before long. Such accumulation of minor tyrannies is not necessarily justified by referring to it, as the Minister did, as a maximum deterrent.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) got very excited indeed in the course of his speech. He referred to tyrannies and to minor tyrannies, and I thought at one time that he was speaking rather like an Old Testament prophet and giving us a grim forecast of doom if his Amendment should not be accepted. He told us that his Amendment was in essence the same as he moved in Committee. Not only is it so in essence; it is exactly the same.
Secondly, he charged my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary with not having fulfilled his undertaking to


look again at this matter—an undertaking which he gave in Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is still maintaining that, but in pursuance of the undertaking my hon. Friend and I, and the Minister, looked into the matter—I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance—very carefully, and on 26th January my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who was leading for the Opposition in Committee and told him that, on moving traffic offences,
we have decided, after careful consideration, that we cannot make any concessions".
I hope, having regard to that, that the hon. Member will gracefully withdraw any charge or any suggestion that my hon. Friend did not fulfil the undertaking given in Committee to go carefully into this matter.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: What I asserted was that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends looked but did not leap.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman can look at HANSARD in the morning, but I am sure he would not wish it to go out from this House that an undertaking given by my hon. Friend in Committee was not fulfilled.
As my hon. Friend said in Committee, acceptance of this Amendment would seriously weaken the Bill. He also said that this provision was supported by the motoring organisations. I would not have thought that they would have supported this provision—I think the idea came originally from them—if it had in any way been suggested this was tyranny.
But we gave the undertaking, and we looked very carefully at the width of this problem, and I think that this is, perhaps, what the hon. Member's feelings were: he was not objecting to some matters coming within the ambit of this subsection but rather that they should be so all-embracing as to cover such a multitudinous number of sins.
There are three kinds of objections. There are practical objections and technical ones, and there are objections in principle. First, as to the practical objections, as regards limiting the scope of this Clause, we looked at all possible alternatives—the creation of a new list of offences, something on the lines the hon.

Gentleman suggested. This was opposed strenuously by the chief constables in that it would have meant that police officers would have to be armed with this new list; they would have to be sure they did not make a mistake in the application of this list; and it was suggested most strongly to us that this would place a very unfair burden on the police in enforcement, and that it would mean they would be faced with very onerous penalties if they wrongly applied the list.
8.15 p.m.
Then we looked to the existing list. I am going through this to show the hon. Gentleman that we looked very carefully at the matter, because we were minded of the importance of the hon. Gentleman's feelings in Committee. We looked at the existing list of offences attracting disqualification, in Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Act, 1962. This includes offences involving construction, and use, and licensing and insurance, and I am sure they would not meet the objections of the hon. Gentleman.
Then we looked, thirdly, at offences related to the manner of driving, and this, probably, again, would come within the ambit of what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. Here again we were faced with very serious difficulties of interpretation. There is a precedent for this in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, where disqualification was imposed for any offence
in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle".
That led to an enormous amount of litigation—I am sure, most lucrative litigation; but this litigation resulted in such doubt, hence Parliament had to face this very same situation in 1956 when it had to create the specific list of offences.
Indeed, it would be virtually impossible to arrive at a definition which would be precise and which would cover the kinds of offences which we particularly feel should be included. Indeed, even if one were to accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said in moving his Amendment, he and I would be at odds immediately, in that speeding would certainly not be one of the offences which we would be excluding. In Committee the hon. Gentleman suggested that speeding was a technical offence. Indeed, he suggested that having 81 milligrammes


of alcohol in the body was also a technical offence. I am certain I would quarrel with him on that, as to what was technical and what was not technical. I am sure he will accept it from me that there are practical difficulties in arriving at a list, and even if one were to decide on a list there would be very important differences of opinion as to what should be in the list and what should not be in the list. So those are the practical difficulties.
As regards objections in principle, I think my right hon. Friend dealt at some length in the debate on an earlier Amendment with what this Bill is about and what its object is. The object of the Bill is to deter all people, whether or not they show any outward signs, from exceeding the limits. It is accepted that most people are affected when they go over the 80 milligrammes, and, on the limited information available to us, probably some people with over 80 show no signs of having consumed alcohol. Therefore, it is essential that the Bill should provide some means of detecting drivers who show no signs. Hence, this part of this subsection (2) is a very important element in order to ensure that this is a deterrent for this very category of people who show no outward signs but for whom it is important that they should remain within the very important random element in the operation of the Bill.
Having regard to these considerations, the practical ones and the objections in principle, I would ask either that the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Amendment or that the House reject it.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As the Under-Secretary has convinced me not on the main points of his argument but wholly of the fact that the Government have reintroduced an effective widespread random element, the point that I sought to make. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.

No. 8, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.

No. 9, in line 12, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.

No. 10, in line 20, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 28, to leave out subsection (7) and to insert:
(7) A person arrested under this section or the said section 6(4) shall, while at a police station, be given an opportunity to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test there.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, might we at the same time consider two consequential Amendments, No. 12, in page 3, Clause 3, line 38, leave out from 'urine)' to second 'that' in line 41 and insert:
'if he has previously been given an opportunity to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test at that station under subsection (7) of the last foregoing section, and either—
(a) it appears to a constable on the breath test'.
and No. 13, in line 44, leave out from 'when' to 'he' in line 45 and insert:
'given the opportunity to provide that specimen'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if that is agreeable to the House.

Mr. Taverne: In these Government Amendments we are acting on a suggestion made by the Opposition in the Committee proceedings, that the problem presented by mouth alcohol should be dealt with in the Bill by providing for a second breath test at the police station, instead of the police dealing with the problem administratively as was originally proposed. The Government undertook in Committee to consider the suggestion, and we have now accepted it. The two other Amendments are consequential on the one that I have moved.
Clause 2(7) at present only enables the police to require a person arrested under Section 6(4) of the 1960 Act to take a breath test at the police station. It does not refer at all to persons arrested or asked to take a breath test under the Bill. The power is at present discretionary, but in practice it would no doubt be exercised in all cases arising under Section 6(4) because the power to require a specimen for a laboratory test depends on a breath test having been carried out, or, of course, on a refusal to take a breath test.
The proposed new subsection (7) of Clause 2 places a new statutory duty on the police to offer a breath test to all


persons brought to the police station under arrest, whether they are arrested under Section 6(4) of the 1960 Act or under the Bill. Persons arrested under the Bill will either be arrested under Clause 2(4), where there is a positive breath test, or under Clause 2(5), where someone fails to perform the breath test. Thus, the second breath test must be offered to those who are arrested for refusing a roadside test as well as to those who produce a positive result.
A feature of the Amendment is that a time lapse will now be automatically provided for between a road side test and the second test, because it will take some time to get the person to the police station and to go through certain formalities there before he takes the second test. This time lapse should normally be a period of 20 minutes, which is what is desirable, and that should be a sufficient safeguard against the mouth alcohol effect making the test not reliable. If, however, the police station happens to be very close to the place of arrest, and if, therefore, the time lapse should be less than 20 minutes, and if the driver claims that he had a very recent drink, the police will need to ensure that there is an adequate delay between tests. We shall certainly give guidance to the police on this.
The Amendment is not applied to the case of a person taken to hospital after an accident; if in such a case the police require the person to undergo a breath test, it will almost always be done at the hospital, provided that the hospital doctor does not object, because the first consideration will be to get him to hospital. The time lapse will then almost always be sufficient to ensure against mouth alcohol effect.
The effect of the Amendment on a person arrested under Section 6(4) of the 1960 Act is that he must be given the opportunity of a breath test at the police station. Although in such case the poilce will have a duty instead of a discretion under the Bill with the Amendment, it will make no difference in practice because, as I have stated, the police will almost always prefer to ask for the test there to enable them to prosecute for a fixed level offence rather than for impairment.
The second and third of the Amendments amend Clause 3(1) relating to the

conditions to be satisfied before a person can be required to provide a specimen for a laboratory test, and are consequential on the first Amendment.
The effect of the consequential Amendments is that neither a person arrested under the Bill nor one arrested under Section 6(4) of the 1960 Act can be required to provide a specimen of blood or of urine for a laboratory test under the Bill unless he is given the opportunity of a breath test at the police station and either the result is positive or he fails or refuses to do the test.

Mr. Awdry: As I moved the Amendment on this subject in Standing Committee, I should like to thank the Under-Secretary for making this concession, which I believe will make for a fairer and more acceptable Bill.
I have said enough about mouth alcohol in Standing Committee and this House, and if I say any more I shall gain a reputation for drinking. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments that I used in Committee. It is generally agreed that tests taken immediately after a person has been drinking give false results. It is absolutely right that an accused person should have the right to ask for a second test.
I remind the House of the words used by the Under-Secretary about this matter in Standing Committee:
I propose to deal first with a minor point of detail, but it may be as well to put the record straight. I understand that medical opinion is that no trace of mouth alcohol effect remains after possibly 20, and almost certainly after 25, minutes. Within the 25-minute period the mouth alcohol effect is greatest. It is worst immediately after drinking alcohol, and it reduces progressively until it disappears after 25 minutes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 1st December, 1966; c. 181–2.]
In Standing Committee the Government seemed rather reluctant to support an Amendment. I very much welcome their change of heart. The Amendment gives additional safeguards to the innocent motorist, and we are grateful for it.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) for bringing this matter before the Standing Committee, and to the Government for now putting this Amendment forward on Report.


Here we have the second example today of the positive, co-operative work that was done in the Committee, in that two matters raised on the Opposition side in Committee have now been accepted by the Government, on both occasions despite the determination at the time of the Under-Secretary that no such legislation was required. I am glad that he has seen fit to change his mind on this case since I am sure that, as my hon. Friend has said, the new proposal will do away with what would have been a considerable unfairness to many people who would have been taken to the police station as a result of a first test where mouth alcohol might have affected the reading and would then have had to undergo a urine or blood test and perhaps have had to wait several days before they knew the outcome of the test and whether they were guilty of an offence or not. It does not take much imagination to realise the great mental agony that many people might have suffered whose whole future, perhaps, was dependent on the outcome of the test when they were themselves confident that the effect of the breath test had been caused by mouth alcohol rather than anything else.
The Under-Secretary referred to our proceedings in Committee. In column 182 he made clear that it was his impression of the working of the Bill in practice that the police would very often agree to give a second test at the roadside to a man who maintained that he had only recently, within the last few minutes, had a drink.
I hope that, despite this Amendment, the police will still do this in those cases, because it will save many people from being unnecessarily taken to the police stations. A man might say, "I know that I have a positive reading on the breath test. I have literally had only one drink, but I had that within the last five minutes". If he could have another test at the roadside, it would save the police a great deal of additional work. I hope that is still proposed.
Do I understand from the new proposal that it is the Government's intention that every individual police station shall now have a breathalyser at the police station? Presumably they will have to, so as to be able to conduct the second test. If so, when in practice are police stations likely to be so equipped and will the

coming into force of the Bill be dependent upon the Treasury's providing the money to furnish the various police stations with breathalysers?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: The question of a second roadside test must depend on the circumstances. I do not think I can say what the invariable practice will be. One of the advantages of the second test at the police station is that the police will no longer have to hang about for 20 minutes at the roadside. On the other hand, in certain other cases if they are testing a number of individuals and if the first one to be tested says, "I have only just had a drink and I have mouth alcohol effect", it may well be that for their own convenience, as well as that of the motorist, the police would say, "Wait until we have tested the others and then have another go". However, we do not want the individual to have to undergo three tests, four tests, or five tests. This must be left to the discretion of the individual police officer.
Testing devices will be available at police stations. May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one point? The word "breathalyser" is commonly used. In fact, the breath-test device will not be the breathalyser. The breathalyser is one which is claimed to have an accurate reading, whereas ours is a screening device The breathalyser is a particular product. Ours is a breath-test device. There will be breath-test devices at police stations for the purpose of this second test.
The date of the coming into operation of the Bill, when enacted, will depend upon the number of devices available to the police. They are already being tested. Within a matter of weeks our final tests will have been concluded on whether or not the devices supplied by particular manufacturers are suitable. However, they will have to be available in considerable quantities before this part of the Bill can become operative. This does not depend upon the Treasury. It depends simply upon how fast we can get a sufficiently large number of breathtesting devices.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: To return briefly to the question of the breathalyser, in Committee the Under-Secretary referred to the question of statistical limits of error for this apparatus. After an assurance


that some limit of error was built into the limits prescribed by the Government, he undertook to inform us what these limits were.
I attach the greatest importance to the public's knowing what are the statistical limits of error in all the apparatus the Government intend to use. If it is a very minor, insignificant limit of error, we can forget about it. If the statistical limit of error is significantly large, we should know what provisions the Government are building into the whole apparatus and administration of this law. The public should know and the House should know.

Mr. Taverne: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the limits now, because this question depends partly on the results of the tests to establish exactly what the error will be. However, it will not be significantly large.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(LABORATORY TESTS.)

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 3, line 38, leave out from 'urine)' to second 'that' in line 41 and insert:
'if he has previously been given an opportunity to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test at that station under subsection (7) of the last foregoing section, and either—
(a) it appears to a constable on the breath test'.

No. 13, in line 44, leave out from 'when' to 'he' in line 45 and insert:
'given the opportunity to provide that specimen'.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 2, to leave out from 'provide' to end of line 3 and insert:
'at the hospital a specimen for a laboratory test'.
This is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to remove any ambiguity as to the place of a laboratory test. The present wording of subsection (2) could give an erroneous impression that a specimen provided in a hospital would be analysed at the hospital.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 15, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.

No. 16, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.

No. 17, in page 4, line 38, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.—[Mr. John Morris.]

Clause 4.—(CONSEQUENCES OF CONVIC TION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES OF DRIVING OR BEING IN CHARGE.)

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 19, after 'disqualification' to insert:
'unless in the case of a first offence under this Act the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction and thinks fit to order him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 19, in page 6, line 24, at the end to insert:
(c) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section a court may on a first offence and where disqualification involves severe hardship to the individual reduce the period of such disqualification to not less than six months.

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am only sorry that there are not more Members present, particularly on the benches opposite, since this Amendment is as important as the one dealing with random tests about which hon. Members opposite were extremely concerned earlier. I notice that Amendment No. 19, in the names of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), who is here, and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), has an intention very similar to the intention of the Amendment which I have moved.
The purpose of this Amendment is to restore to the courts some measure of discretion on the question of disqualification which must be imposed following upon conviction. As the Bill stands, anyone who commits the new offence which we are here creating will automatically be disqualified for a minimum of 12 months. Whatever I say in support of the Amendment must not be taken as indicating that I am in any way urging that driving with too much alcohol in the bloodstream is not a serious offence. But the House should realise that we are now moving away from the era when


the offence was driving with impaired ability and we are creating the new offence of driving merely with a specific quantity of alcohol in the body.
When one is moving to a new offence of this kind, which is likely to vary greatly in degree, it is important to see that we give the courts adequate width of choice in the type of penalty which they wish to impose. The Amendment is concerned merely with first offenders. It provides that, when a person appears before the court for a first offence under the Bill, the court shall have a certain amount of discretion and not be bound automatically to disqualify for at least twelve months. We have taken the words in Section 5 of the 1962 Act, inserting, after the reference to disqualification,
unless in the case of a first offence under this Act the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction"—
that is, automatic disqualification for 12 months—
and thinks fit to order him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified.
Those who were on the Standing Committee will recall that we had a long debate in the issue of discretion in all cases, and we then had a narrow debate on discretion for first offenders. It was in order to meet the Minister's objection in that debate that this Amendment was drawn evenly more narrowly still, leaving it that a first offender would be disqualified for 12 months unless, in all the circumstances, the court decides in its discretion that there are circumstances to mitigate the normal effect of the conviction.
It was with concern that I heard the Minister suggest earlier today that she was not prepared to listen to this Amendment and would not, as she put it, be frightened off the view which she had taken. As the matter was fully debated in Committee I shall not set out at length again all the arguments in favour of giving some discretion to the court. In view of the time I summarise them under three heads.
My first ground of objection to the Bill as it stands is that I believe it to be wrong when the House is bringing in a new offence of an automatic nature, to lay down at the same time automatic

minimum penalties which must apply in all cases.
One other point which all hon. Members may not have realised is that under the Criminal Justice Bill, which is at present going through the House, powers are being taken to prevent the courts ever refusing to disqualify a person charged with an offence of this nature by giving an absolute discharge, whereupon no disqualification follows. That was the "get-out" that the courts always had in a difficult, tragic case. If the Government's proposals go through, it will be withdrawn from them, because in the future even if they gave an absolute discharge to a person appearing before them they would be bound to disqualify for a period of 12 months under the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill.
We are therefore laying down rigidly for every single case a minimum disqualification of 12 months. I believe that when we are bringing in a new, wholly different offence, an offence of an automatic nature, it is wrong to bring in such automatic penalties. As I said in Committee—and was chided by the Minister for saying it—I am, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), opposed in principle to automatic minimum penalties. I believe that the question of the right penalty for any offence is always a matter for the court before whom the person appears, and that that court should always have discretion to decide the right penalty. That is the duty of the court, and Parliament's duty is not to impose minimum penalties but to ensure that adequate penalties are available for the court to use.
My second ground of objection to the Bill as it stands is that we are laying down an offence when it is quite impossible for any of us in the House to tell anybody outside when he will be committing that offence. We are laying down that it will be an offence to drive with over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood in one's bloodstream, yet we all know that if anybody asks us tonight what that is in terms of drinks we are incapable of answering.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the amount of alcohol that gives that reading depends on the person's age, size, sex, the type of drink, whether he or she had eaten food, and the length of


time over which the drink had been taken. One can summarise it by saying that the limit of 80 milligrammes may be reached with anything from possibly one large whisky to the six large whiskies to which the Minister referred on Second Reading of the previous Bill.
At the other extreme, the B.M.A. said in the conversion table in a pamphlet upon which they no longer rely that 80 milligrammes equalled a minimum content of about two pints of beer or two large whiskies for an 11-stone man. Therefore, let us not run away with the idea that we are setting such a high limit that it would immediately be apparent to anybody that the alcohol he had consumed had taken him over the limit. That is undoubtedly not the case, and believe that under the Bill many people will commit offences when driving their motor vehicles who do not at present realise that they are in danger of doing so.
My third point comes out clearly from the Minister's White Paper. It is that the limit we have laid down does not have a direct relationship with whether or not a person's driving ability is impaired. It is said time and time again in the White Paper that with a reading of over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood the driving ability of the vast majority of people is impaired. That I will accept. But it logically follows that there are some people whose ability to drive is not impaired when they have over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in their bloodstream. People may not know what amount of alcohol leads to that level. Having taken alcohol, a man's ability to drive may not be impaired. Nevertheless, on his first appearance before the court, the minimum punishment which the court can impose is disqualification for twelve months.
8.45 p.m.
Thirdly, there is a vast difference in the degrees of hardship which disqualification causes to different people. To many people the loss of their motor car for twelve months is a social annoyance which prevents their living the type of social life which they lived before. To others, it is undoubtedly their job—for example, the lorry driver and the commercial traveller. It is their job for many people employed on the sales side of firms.
Do not let us forget that twelve months is a long time. A firm may say to a person employed as a lorry driver who is convicted of this offence, "We can carry you for three months or six months without your licence, but we cannot possibly carry you for twelve months". The proposals in the Bill will cause hardship to a great many people.
There are two other points which I wish to raise. In Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) referred to a book by Dr. Willett, who has carried out research into the effects of disqualification. In that book he said that it had been found that the optimum period of disqualification was six months and that people disqualified for a period longer than six months tend to start to drive while disqualified, to which, regrettably, the House should not close its eyes.
Those who read the article in The Times last Thursday will have seen with horror that last year 8,000 people were convicted of driving whilst disqualified. It is esimated that 20,000 people are driving on the roads whilst disqualified; and anyone driving whilst disqualified is also driving whilst uninsured. Although the Motor Insurers' Bureau may meet a claim for personal injuries they may cause, nevertheless they can cause havoc to many innocent people and great loss to those people if an accident occurs. The examination made of this problem shows that excessive periods of disqualification tempt and lead people into committing the offence of driving whilst disqualified. That is another reason why some discretion should be given to the courts in deciding the period of disqualification.
Having set out the ground of my objection to the Bill, may I say to the Minister that the Amendment does not provide that courts shall not disqualify. Throughout the Committee stage she tended to suggest that the purpose of the Amendments was to weaken the law in this respect and that they implied that first offenders should not be convicted. That is not so. We accept the offence and, by the wording of the Amendment, we accept the high degree of probability that people will be disqualified for twelve months. All that we are saying is that if in cases in which the court thinks the


hardship would be undue as against the offence committed by a first offender who may have had a clean driving record for many years, it may, if it believes that there are mitigating circumstances, reduce the disqualification from twelve months to nine, six or three months, if it may not disqualify at all.
The grounds which the court would consider in deciding whether there were circumstances to mitigate the effects of a normal conviction would be the degree of gravity of the offence, whether there had been a reading of 150 or 85 and, for example, the amount of alcohol which is likely to have been consumed. In the same context, it would consider whether there was evidence to suggest that the person was clinically impaired and his driving ability affected. The court would then consider the general character of the accused and then, most important, the effect of the disqualification on the accused.
As I have explained, we have specifically taken the words added to the 1962 Act during its passage through Parliament. At that time many hon. Members objected to the automatic nature of the disqualification for three offences within three years. If one looks at the way in which that Act has worked one sees that for the professional driver—for the man whose livelihood is at stake and whose offence is of a minor nature—disqualification has not been imposed, although in other cases disqualification has been imposed. I believe that the same would happen in this case. In other words, where an infringement—though I accept that one cannot refer to it as a minor offence because, by the nature of the offence we are discussing, it is a serious one—was only slightly over the limit set down and where the man's livelihood was dependent on his licence, the court might decide, in its wisdom, to reduce the period of disqualification, while in the remainder of cases the penalty would be as set out.
I appeal to the Minister to accept the spirit in which the Amendment is moved. It is not moved in an attempt to weaken the Bill or demand that first offenders should not be disqualified. It is an attempt to see that when the Bill works—remembering the tremendous impact it will have on the social habits of the

nation—it does not wreak hardship on a great many people.

Mr. Gardner: Like the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), I was sorry—and I hope that I misheard my right hon. Friend—to understand the Minister to say earlier that she was not able to accept either the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman or the one standing in my name, Amendment No. 19. As the hon. Member for Runcorn said, there was a great deal of unanimity in Committee on this issue. Hon. Members realised that we were discussing a very tough Measure. Like him, I wish to make it clear that I have no wish to weaken the Bill. In earlier debates my hon. Friends and I made this clear. We accept that if the Bill is to be an effective deterrent to drunken driving, its penalties must be very tough indeed.
At the same time, we must consider the person whose livelihood may be in jeopardy, although I part company with the hon. Member for Runcorn when he referred to minimum penalties. Had we been discussing another type of minimum penalty—for example, were we discussing a minimum term of imprisonment—one might take some comfort from the thought that we are all equal in goal. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we are not all equal in the matter of disqualification from driving. We must consider the plight of the lorry driver who may have been caught while perhaps not driving his lorry but when out with friends at the weekend. There is also the question of the man who was caught while driving his private motor car but who normally drives his own mobile greengrocery van. He would be prevented effectively from earning his living for a period of one year if the Bill goes through as it is drafted.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who was kind enough to write to me on this point. However, he appears to have misunderstood our intention. Certainly it was not my intention, as he puts it, to allow the drunken driver to get away with it, whereas the amateur driver suffers the full rigour of the penalty. That is why we seek in this Amendment to give the courts


a discretion not to do away with disqualification altogether but to vary the penalty.
This House, quite rightly, is concerned to see that the law of the land treats equals equally. When we have this kind of punishment, it is almost impossible to do that. Clearly, there is a difference in hardship, not in terms of the nature of the offence but in terms of the effects of the punishment.
One could argue strongly that disqualification for a period of, say, six months would be a much harsher punishment on a professional lorry driver than disqualification for two or even five years would be on an hon. Member of the House, who, after all, has the privilege of first-class rail travel to his constituency, whereas, even under our Amendment, the lorry driver would lose his livelihood for six months.
It is my opinion that we ought to move away from the present method of dealing with drunken drivers. I am very attracted to the Scandinavian idea of a short sharp lesson by taking convicted persons away for a period and putting them to some useful work on behalf of the community. Unfortunately, we cannot discuss alternative penalties at this stage.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend gave the impression that the point was a valid one and that, although there were many difficulties about making allowance for some variation in the penalty, she was cognisant of the fact that there is a problem and that we need to have penalties which have similar effects on different individuals.
I am not suggesting that the form of words in either Amendment is ideal. The official Opposition Amendment is too wide, because there may be some dispute about the circumstances which led up to the conviction. My hon. Friend and I accept that the offence requires the severest punishment, but we believe that a court should be given the opportunity to vary the punishment according to the effect of the punishment on the individual and not according to the nature of the offence.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this again. If the form of words in neither Amendment is acceptable, perhaps she will return to it at a later stage.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has put forward a very strong case in moderate and reasonable terms, and I hope that the Minister will pay heed to what he has said.
I have no strong opinions as to whether the Amendment which the hon. Member favours is to be preferred to that moved so impressively by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). On balance, I prefer my hon. Friend's Amendment, because it gives a slightly broader discretion to the courts. Severe hardship is somewhat restricting and sometimes difficult to define. There is such a wide variety of circumstances which the court might have to bear in mind that it is better to leave the discretion somewhat open.
Be that as it may, I am opposed to compulsory disqualification for a first offence of any kind, because it is wrong in principle. In the context of the new offence, I am afraid that, if we have compulsory disqualification for a first offence, it will defeat the purpose of Part I of the Bill. I say that because it will generate a reluctance to convict of having a specified quantity of alcohol in the blood, just as, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in Committee, there has been a reluctance to convict of the new offence created under the 1962 Act. The reason why there were not more convictions under the 1962 Act than we had previously for driving under the influence as it was called was that we introduced compulsory disqualification for the long period of 12 months, even for a first offence.
9.0 p.m.
The Government are trying in this Bill, quite rightly in my opinion, to deal more effectively with motorists who drive with alcohol in their blood. We want these prosecutions to succeed, but I think that the Minister was being a little optimistic on an earlier Amendment, when she put forward the view that convictions would follow as a matter of course. The fact is that under the Bill the prosecution will have to cross a number of technical hurdles, and if benches think that the results of conviction for a first offence are too drastic they may be as reluctant to convict in future as they have been in the past, and the prosecution will find these hurdles difficult to cross. I think


that the Government should profit by our experience and not repeat a previous mistake, for which I accept my share of responsibility.
I propose to move on now to the question why, in my opinion, compulsory disqualification is wrong in principle for a first offence. In the first place, it is contrary to the whole spirit of the Probation of Offenders Act. It cannot be denied that disqualification is a penalty or punishment, and the right hon. Lady said in Committee—and I agreed with her—that it was playing with words to make a distinction between its use as a deterrent and its use as a punishment. She said, however—and I must put this in fairness—that she wanted it as a deterrent, and not as a punishment. I do not see how she will get that. It obviously is a punishment as well as a deterrent.
We must not lose sight of the well-established fact, which was brought to light by Sir George Benson, who was Chairman of a Home Office Committee dealing with the matter some years ago, that 70 per cent. of first offenders never appear in court again. To that extent it should not be necessary to have such a drastic deterrent or punishment.
But there is another matter which one must mention in connection with the principle which is involved, and it is that by interfering with the discretion of justices in relation to the first offender we would really be putting the clock back in the treatment of offenders, because, as Mr. Chuter Ede pointed out in 1948, the punishment should always fit not only the crime, but the offender, and if we in Parliament impose an automatic penalty, a minimum sentence of compulsory disqualification, that will make it impossible for the courts to ensure that the punishment fits the offender as well as the crime. This is especially true in the case of first offenders, and I therefore consider that the Amendment is essential. both to make the Bill effective, and to ensure that justice is done.
The only point that I would add is to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn said about the most extraordinary situation that we are reaching, with 20,000 disqualified drivers, many of them driving on the roads, with all the disadvantages that this entails. It came

to light recently that some officers of police are very worried about this.
It is time that we took stock of the whole position arising over compulsory disqualification of offenders—and, indeed, of disqualification generally. The time has probably come when representatives of the Home Office, the Ministry of Transport, Queen's Bench judges and magistrates should seriously confer, get hold of the facts, and see exactly where we are going.
It is appropriate to mention that on this Amendment, because we are discussing a further departure in the direction of compulsory disqualification and it would be wrong for us to make that departure unless we could be sure that the Government realised that a difficult situation was arising. I hope that we will hear something tonight—it should come from the representative of the Home Office, with respect—to indicate that the Government are alive to this difficult situation and prepared to do something about it.
Meanwhile, we must act in the context of the Bill. The wise thing would be to accept either my hon. Friend's Amendment or that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mapp: My speech may be inconsistent with what I said in Committee— that, after some years of sitting in a magistrates' court and accepting the limitations of many such courts and indeed of quarter sessions, I still think that a magistrate diligently searching for the truth should have some area of discretion in certain very limited circumstances.
Without any inbuilt prejudices, I must say that the words of Amendment No. 18 remind me that, so often in the past, clever people for the defence can persuade courts of all the special circumstances and can get away without an order for disqualification or words to that effect. I have heard this in the courts so often with very flimsy evidence that I would be loth to accept any words of this kind to give a broad indication to magistrates of the special case which can arise under the Bill.
Therefore, I had some part framing the words of Amendment No. 19. Dealing with a first offence, it relates in particular to severe hardship to the individual. The Home Office might say, "Why should


a court take into account the individual's problems when he has committed an offence?" But courts are always doing that. We expect magistrates to take this into account. If the facts in one case point to a level of 80 milligrammes in the blood and the facts in another point in another direction, the magistrates' views should be recorded.
Magistrates might be faced with Mr. or Mrs. Brown, who may be 50, with an impeccable driving record and a licence held for many years. The court would know—magistrates know their areas—that this person, in an accepted position and a person of character, because of one foolish interlude—perhaps going to a celebration of a silver wedding anniversary—has done something unpardonable. Nevertheless, I suppose that there are aberrations in nearly all lives. The defendant finds himself on the one odd occasion at a rating of 85 or 90 milligrammes. I assume that that is a long way from being drunk. But perhaps it is a situation in which one is adventurous.
These are the facts which come to the magistrates. They may question the police in an assessment of the defendant. They will listen carefully to the evidence. But, in the end, they will be faced with the fact that they will have to carry out the law under this Bill. They will have no choice. The penalty will be very harsh in that case—really, it will be over harsh. The defendant may be the doctor or the professional man or the longdistance driver who has offended in his own car during the weekend. With all the good will in the world—indeed, I believe, with all the good will of this House—the magistrates will be bound to impose the full hardship of the law, 12 months' disqualification.
The penalty will certainly hurt. It would hurt me, and I am away from home four days out of seven. It would seriously inconvenience me. But what about the professional man or the man who drives professionally? My right hon. Friend said in Committee, on 8th December, that the Committee could not expect her, just before Christmas, to make a commendatory move towards a similar Amendment because it would be out of harmony with the need to let people realise, as we moved towards Christmas, of the need for the utmost care, and we accepted her view. My

hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) and I spent some time drafting the Amendment to try to cover the real hardship cases. I hope that my right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, will reconsider.
Perhaps even our solution of a minimum of six months' disqualification is too severe. In some circumstances, I could argue that this would be very harsh in the case of, for example, a doctor who has only once transgressed and has speeded, although the evidence does not say that he was drunk or was driving a car in a foolish manner. But because he has gone beyond 80 milligrammes he must be treated as severely as a person who, having taken drink, drives in the knowledge that he is impaired. In the unique circumstances I am trying to describe, I ask my right hon. Friend at least to make sympathetic noises and say she will reconsider this.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Awdry: I like both Amendments, but on balance I prefer No. 18, which has been so well and persuasively moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I shall not try to frighten the Minister—she has no need to be fearful—but I would like to convince her about the merit of the Amendment.
Whenever we discuss penalties, we come up against a dilemma. As soon as we argue that disqualification of a first offender is harsh, we are told that we are weakening the Bill. That was what we were told steadily throughout Standing Committee. We are not trying to weaken the Bill in any way.
I have read the speech on this subject by the Minister in Standing Committee when she rejected our Amendments. The right hon. Lady stated:
But let us pause for a moment and think what is the purpose of the Bill. Surely, the main purpose is to bring clarity and precision where discretion operated before. The right hon. Member for Ashford said that the Bill is altering the whole concept of the law. That is exactly what we are saying. The past discretionary approach lacked subjective definitions as to what was impairment and attempted to establish, by imprecise criteria, what it was that we were trying to stop. That failed to deal with the problem which we are all agreed we want to deal with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 8th December, 1966; c. 262.]
I entirely agree with those words.


We are making the offence more precise, and quite rightly, because far too often as the law stands guilty people have been getting away with it. Because, however, we are making the offence more precise is no argument in logic to say that we should remove all discretion from the punishment. If the right hon. Lady reflects on this, she will see that there is no logic in her argument which I have just quoted.
The House must realise that in future practically all prosecutions which are brought will be brought under the Bill and not under the existing law. This is because the new Act will make it an easier procedure for prosecutions. Thus, as I said in Standing Committee, three categories of person will appear before the courts. The worst category are those who even today are convicted. All those will be rightly convicted and disqualified. Secondly, there will be the cases in which the amount of alcohol in the blood is between, say, 150 and 200 milligrammes and in which category today so many defendants are acquitted. I think that half of those with 150 milligrammes or more in the blood and who go for trial are acquitted. In future, all those will be convicted and automatically disqualified. The third category will be the people who are brought before the courts and against whom no prosecution would have taken place before the Bill becomes law. All those will be automatically convicted. As the Bill stands, they will all be automatically disqualified for a year.
All that the Amendment does is to say that among that third category there may be some, perhaps not many, who only just go over the margin and for whom automatic disqualification would be too harsh. We therefore say that in the case of first offenders in that category, discretion should be given to the magistrates. I believe that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who is a magistrate and speaks with great knowledge of the courts, supports this view. It would not weaken the Bill but would make it much fairer and more acceptable.
In an earlier debate today, the Minister said to her hon. Friends that she was not being frightened into making an concession. She has heard persuasive speeches from both sides of the House and she is now about to hear another

from this side. I hope, therefore, that she will be prepared to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Lubbock: Unfortunately, this persuasive speech will not be in harmony with the last one. I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), but I must correct him on one point before I deal with the other arguments to which I have listened.
The hon. Member spoke about the people who only just go over the margin. If the hon. Member looks back to the sitting of the Standing Committee before the one from which he has just quoted, he will remember that the Minister quite rightly said that the margin was not 80 milligrammes, but 50 milligrammes, and that if we compare the legislation which is now before the House with the Swedish provisions we find that the Swedes have a different set of penalties for persons with between 50 and 80 milligrammes from those who have 80 milligrammes and more. In Sweden, I understand from the Minister's speech, disqualification is automatic if a person has more than 80 milligrammes of alcohol in the blood but below that level, between 50 and 80 milligrammes, disqualification is discretionary. He will find this in the Minister's speech—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will, I hope, address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I will just finish the sentence—of 6th December, 1966, in c. 238.

Mr. Awdry: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that some countries set the limit lower and some others set it a good deal higher?

Mr. Lubbock: Yes, and I am arguing against the hon. Gentleman who said that we must discriminate between those who just went over the margin and those with the much higher level of 150 or 200 milligrammes, half of whom he says now get away with it. I disagreed with him, and said that the limit, if one is to exercise discretion, would not be 80 milligrammes but 50.
I agree with the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that the number of people driving who have been disqualified is very worrying. If there were


8,000 people driving last year while disqualified we must address ourselves very seriously to the problem and try to find a solution to it, but I am not sure that this present debate is the right occasion on which to have a comprehensive discussion of the machinery for catching people who are driving whilst they are disqualified. We must find a general solution to that problem, but not let our minds be influenced too much in considering these Amendments by the number of cases of that kind that occur at present.
It seems to me that the point about these two Amendments is that, as the right hon. Lady the Minister said in Committee, disqualification is a real hardship, and to the extent that one waters down this hardship that we know will be imposed on people guilty of an offence under the Clause we lessen the deterrent effect. I accept that Amendment No. 19 is at least to be preferred to that moved from this side of the House, and I hope that if the right hon. Lady is prepared to move in this direction at all she will feel disposed to accept Amendment No. 19 rather than Amendment No. 18 which, in my view, goes far too widely.
As has been said from the other side of the House, it would be reasonable for a person guilty of a first offence, and in a case in which there are strong mitigating circumstances, not to be disqualified for a full year but perhaps for a period of six months, as Amendment No. 19 provides. That would be quite reasonable. Even so, six months disqualification would be a very serious hardship to, say, a lorry driver or a commercial traveller, but I put it to the House that it is the responsibility of such a person who is using the roads constantly to be even more careful than the ordinary citizen about the quantity of alcohol he takes before driving.
The lorry driver, the commercial traveller, the bus driver—people like that—should not touch a drop of alcohol before going on the road. I am sure that organisations such as the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers' Association would agree with me absolutely there, and would try to influence their members to think in terms of never

touching one drop of alcohol before taking to the roads. These people will therefore have to address their minds extremely carefully to this legislation. The hardship that such disqualification would cause them should be a matter for them to take into account throughout the whole of their working lives, and even when taking their own private cars on the roads at the weekends they must get into the habit of not drinking any alcohol at all if the whole of their life's work entails driving.
The spirit in which these Amendments are moved is very humane. I agree that one should at all times try to make the punishment fit the offender as well as fit the crime, but we have here the difficulty that in the past the courts have been extremely lenient—too lenient—to people who have taken alcohol and then driven on the roads.
My fear is that if Amendment No. 18 were accepted a number of people would be convicted of this offence and would be let off by the magistrates who felt that it was not as serious an offence as this House views it to be. I am sure the hon. Member for Oldham, East will confirm that we would have a situation in which courts in different parts of the country would take different attitudes to the offence. In one part of the country a magistrate would say that a lorry driver would suffer such terrible hardship if he were convicted that he should exercise his discretion and not disqualify him, while the magistrate in a different part of the country may be less sympathetic towards lorry drivers and say that the man must be disqualified for the full period of a year.
For the avoidance of any doubt and in order to create a real deterrent, the penalty must stand or be modified only to the extent suggested by Amendment No. 19. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) informed me that in many states of the United States there is automatic disqualification for speeding. The greatest deterrent against exceeding the speed limit in those states is a huge notice on the throughways saying, "Speeders lose licences". If we can get it into the head of every motorist that by taking alcohol he stands in danger of losing his licence for a year, we shall get rid of a great deal of drunken motoring.

Mrs. Castle: I have given very careful thought to the points covered by these Amendments as I promised in Committee that I would. My reference earlier this evening should not lead anyone to believe that I have not given a very great deal of time and thought to the arguments which have been advanced, but I am sure all hon. Members will agree that we canvassed all the aspects of these two Amendments in Committee and there have not been any new arguments deployed in this debate. Therefore, it is on the basis of the arguments in Committee that I have been giving the reconsideration which I was asked to give.
I think the House will agree when hon. Members hear what I have to say that I have tried to meet the points which have been raised in the way which I think is the only way effectively to meet them. Two point arise on these Amendments. First there is the plea for the first offender in general on the ground that 12 months' disqualification may prove too harsh for someone who, as it were, is just feeling his way in coming to terms with the new offence and who more by accident than design finds himself just over the level. That is one of the rather heart-rending pictures which have been painted.
Secondly, there is the plea for the man whose livelihood may depend on driving and who, it is argued, may be just over the level with a first offence. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) goes very much further than the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) in making the disqualification in these cases discretionary. I must make clear at the outset—

It being half-past Nine o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed—[Mrs. Castle.]

Question again proposed.

Mrs. Castle: I must make it clear at the outset that I cannot make disqualification discretionary for this offence, even in the case of the first offender, and even if the Amendment suggested there

would have to be mitigating circumstances. The reason for this I gave in Committee, and I still think it is valid, is that the object of the new law is to deter people from driving when they have too much alcohol in their blood.
We have just got to grasp what is the nature of the new offence and how we have got to have a quite different concept of what is a serious matter in drinking and driving. The more I listen to discussions of the kind we had just now, the more clear I am that even hon. Members of this House, who considered the Bill in Committee, and who are supporting the concept of the new offence, and have certainly given the impression that they understand its implications—even among us the assumption slips out in speeches that really the commission of this new offence is not serious in the sense that we have learned to regard the drink and driving offences under the old law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) practically spelled it out in terms, as some hon. Members opposite did in Committee. He gave the case of someone who, he said, was not drunk, only just over the level, and so he was not impaired. But that shows we have not grasped what the new offence is.
I did not dream up the level of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. It is not something which one just draws out of a hat. This level of definition in this new offence is based on medical advice, and I must repeat to the House that already the level of 80 is, if anything, over-generous, because the B.M.A. has pointed out to us quite clearly, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us just now, that an appreciable proportion of drivers will begin to be impaired at much below that level—at 50 milligrammes. That is another fact we have to get home to people, and really it is mistaken to discuss this offence, as has been suggested, by saying, "If you are at 80, well, that is nothing very considerable; you have a bit in hand".
There would be nothing very serious, it was said in Committee, if we were just 10 milligrammes or so above the level. I told the Committee at the time when we discussed this then, that if we had a starting point of 50 milligrammes I thought it would be reasonable to say,


"Well, let us make it discretionary up to 80, because we are on the right side of the danger." This, of course, as the hon. Member pointed out, is what the Swedes do. They do have discretionary disqualification for their offence, but it is discretionary up to 80 milligrammes—because those people have already drunk more than they ought to do if they are at the wheel of a car, for it is just not true they will not be impaired.
We have got to say to people, "You are impaired at 80. You are, therefore, potentially a danger at the wheel." This really is the problem we have to face when we start to talk about mitigating circumstances and how harsh disqualification is, because it does not begin until the level of 80 milligrammes is reached. This is the point. We must take very seriously the question of deterring people from reaching that level.
We all know—it was revealed again in the National Opinion Poll published a few days ago—that the real deterrent is disqualification. It was very interesting to see the figures resulting from the poll in reply to the question" Which do you think is the best way to prevent people from driving under the influence of drink—fining them or disqualifying them?" Eighty-three per cent. said "disqualify" and only 12 per cent. "fine".

Sir D. Renton: How does the right hon. Lady account for the fact, if it is such a great deterrent—I am speaking generally now, not only in regard to drink—that the number of accidents does not fall as the number of people disqualified rises?

Mrs. Castle: I should not like to pronounce on a remark of a general kind like that, of whose validity I would remain to be convinced, and which certainly could not be commented upon without a great deal more knowledge of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to say.
As I said, disqualification is the great deterrent. We all know as a matter of experience, with all deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East, that magistrates are only too likely to let off from disqualification a high proportion of those convicted if mitigating circumstances can be pleaded.

Mr. Mapp: In her consideration of this important principle, will my right hon. Friend take into account that the police authorities, having got the whole of the information, and knowing the character of the unusual person now involved and about whom we are speaking, may start issuing warnings rather than go through the processes of the court knowing that the end product will be too harsh for the immediate circumstances? I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the problem for the police superintendent who has to decide whether or not a prosecution should take place. It is a difficult position that I should like the House to safeguard.

Mrs. Castle: I should have thought that that argument could be applied to any offences for which disqualification was automatic. I know that there are certain hon. Members who object to automatic disqualification or automatic penalties. However, as I have pointed out to them, we have a whole list of driving offences under the 1962 Act for which disqualification is automatic. Therefore, I am very concerned to ensure that this new offence gets its proper classification as an offence which is equivalent in seriousness to those for which automatic disqualification is provided.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Lady has just said that magistrates tend to be lenient in these matters. Since these are the words of the 1962 Act, can she tell me in what proportion of cases under that Act magistrates have used their discretion not to disqualify owing to mitigating circumstances? I think that she will find that the proportion is very low.

Mrs. Castle: I can give the hon. Gentleman the figure; it rather reinforces my argument. I was about to give it to the House anyway. Under the 1962 Act, magistrates courts have let off entirely 26 per cent. of persons on those grounds in totting-up cases; that is, one in four.
We are trying to convince people that we are very serious about this new offence and that we really are in earnest about the danger of drinking and driving. I have been bludgeoned and harried on both sides of the House about not being tough enough and for modifying the form of the original random test. Everybody


has been calling for tough action and saying that there should be no compromise with this evil. The Government could not accept Amendment No. 18, which could result in one in four offenders perhaps being let off because of mitigating circumstances, or could result in their being liable to a less severe penalty than they otherwise would be liable to.
Amendment No. 19 is much more reasonable in its scope, because its effect would be to reduce the period of disqualification to six months in the case of a first offence where disqualification would involve severe hardship to the individual. In Committee I promised to consider whether it would be possible to reduce the period of disqualification for the first offender. I always made it clear that I was not prepared to make it discretionary.
I have been interested to re-read what I said in Committee. It now sounds positively prophetic. I said this:
I must say that just before Christmas is not exactly the time when I would want to make a speech which implied that everyone is entitled to a first go … I feel that the more people who grasp this Christmas, as a result of this debate, the fact that there will be no first go for anybody without disqualification the better.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 8th December, 1966, c. 281.]
The fact that we had been debating this Bill, with all its new provisions; the publicity which was given to it; the care with which we chose our words before Christmas—all that had no effect.
It is clear that only pretty ruthless action will have any effect. I do not say that for any love of it. I only wish that it were possible to persuade rather than penalise, but we have not succeeded in persuasion. All the arguments which are used in mitigation of our attitude to drink and driving have only left us with the tragedy we had last Christmas. I believe that public opinion is ready for us to be much tougher than we have been.
I want to refer to two recent public opinion polls. It is interesting to notice how much they coincide in their findings. One is the National Opinion Poll, which I have already quoted, which asked this question:
Do you think that our laws against driving under the influence of drink are too tough or not tough enough or about right?
Seventy-seven per cent. said "Not tough enough."
At about the same time a Gallup Poll was reported—I think it was last weekend or the weekend before—in the Sunday Telegraph. The answer it found to a very similar question was that 71 per cent. said "Not strict enough". The figure was the same for all who answered and for just motorists alone.
I believe that people are waiting for us to give a lead on this. I hope that the House will agree to stand firm on these points tonight. I cannot accept the arguments that one offender should be let off more lightly than another simply because he happens to earn his living by driving. Surely he is the last person to be considered for mitigating circumstances. It is his profession. We expect him to know how to drive. As it is his profession, we expect him to pass a driving test—and a stiffer one than other people could pass. Should not we expect him to pass an even stiffer drinking test, not a milder one? Such a person deserves, not mitigation, but, if anything, greater severity—certainly equivalent severity. Surely this is how we should view the matter when a man who earns his living by driving falls into this inexcusable offence?
There is one other not unimportant point. The automatic disqualification for impairment is 12 months. If we give the courts discretion here to reduce the disqualification to six months in certain cases, we ought logically to give them same discretion for impairment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Hon. Members have not got their psychology right on this yet. The penny has not dropped. We should be saying in those cases that a man's driving is not impaired. This is the point which must be grasped.
9.45 p.m.
The British Medical Associaton has told us that at the level of 50 mg. an appreciable proportion of drivers begin to have their ability impaired. At the 80 mg. level. the overwhelming majority are impaired. This is why we have the new offence. We have all the paraphernalia of Part I because people's driving ability is impaired. To have different penalties for impairment and for this offence would at once put it in the category of less serious offences. We shall never get the point across unless we all start off in unison saying from


the outset that this is an extremely serious offence for which there can be no mitigation. That is what I hope the House will do.
I have given a lot of thought to the argument—the hon. Member for Runcorn put it again today—which asks how we can lay down this new offence and attach great seriousness to it if we do not tell people what it means. People may want to obey this new law, the argument goes, but they are given no guidance because I refused on Second Reading and I have refused since to give conversion tables. I agree that there is something in the argument that people may be in genuine doubt about how much they can drink. But the way out of that is not to say, "You can have a first go and, if it is not very much over the odds, we will treat you lightly". The way out is to have an educational campaign.
I have been thinking very hard about this. It is not an easy matter. As I have said, my whole instinct is against conversion tables of any kind, and the reasons for my opposition to them remain valid. The amount of alcohol needed to produce a concentration of 80 mg. per 100 ml. of blood varies over a fairly wide range, as we all know, according to several factors, the constitution of the individual, whether he drinks on a full or empty stomach, the period over which he drinks, and so on. The way in which these factors interact is so complex that it is not possible to produce a conversion table which allows for it.
It would not, therefore, be possible to produce a conversion table of drinks which would be valid for all people and for all times. The most one could do would be to give the lower end of the range and say that at and above that point there is a risk of exceeding the limit. But even if one were to give the lower end of the range in a conversion table, one would still run into difficulty because most people begin to have their ability impaired by drink before they have reached the level permitted in the Bill. This is one of the problems we are up against. We should not lay down conversion tables which might keep people within the law but still leave a number of them with their ability

impaired. Our aim is to prevent people from driving when their ability is impaired.
I have therefore taken a great deal of medical and scientific advice. The B.M.A. has withdrawn the conversion tables and is not willing to give them. I asked it if there was any kind of guidance we could give people that would enable one to say that the overwhelming majority of us would not be impaired. The fact is that most of us would be impaired at levels possibly below the limit. While the B.M.A. is prepared to say that 1½ pints of beer or three single tots of spirit is the reasonable limit for most of us there are difficulties because that does not apply to everybody. Some people could be seriously impaired with less than 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood in certain circumstances.
The B.M.A. has advised me that there is no amount of alcohol that it would be safe for everyone, without exception, to drink in any circumstances before driving. We must therefore have three qualifications to get over those exceptional cases. They would be: never drive after drinking on an empty stomach; never drive after drinking if you are unused to drinking; never drive if you feel that you are at all affected by the drink.
We must therefore prepare, as I am preparing, a very extensive educational campaign about the provisions of the Bill, its scope and the changes in our social habits that will be necessary. I hope to be able to use advertising media of all kinds to reach as many people as possible. Such a campaign needs very careful preparation, and I cannot now give the House details of what it would involve.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady is going a little wide of the Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: I apologise if you think that that is so, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to answer the point of the hon. Member for Runcorn who says that it is wrong to lay down a minimum penalty for an offence when one will not say what the offence means. I am trying to answer the point which was made by hon. Members in Committee and again tonight. We shall be launching an educational campaign to make clear what is involved in the nature of the new offence. I suggest that that is the right way to deal with the matter and not to mitigate the penalty


when having ignored our advice drivers commit even a first offence.
A point was made about the number of evasions of disqualification. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that it was time that I, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others involved took stock of the situation. I agree that it is extremely disturbing when we find that so many people can evade disqualification. But the answer is not to say that we shall not disqualify, because by so doing we would throw away our most effective deterent. The right way is to improve and tighten up our enforcement, to prevent people going through the net. The Home Secretary and I are currently discussing that, and we are examining the measures that will be necessary to enable us to check evasions of disqualification.
I again suggest that that is the right way to deal with the matter and not to take steps by mitigation of penalties which might hinder the people of this country from the appreciation they must have of the seriousness of the offence.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister said that she had carried out a public opinion poll which showed that the law was not tough enough. I do not think that anybody would disagree; we know that the law is not tough enough. What I am afraid is that if she were to carry out a public opinion poll on the Bill as it is people would say that it was not fair enough. That is what is wrong with it.
We are not arguing about whether there should be an offence. We do not wish to be soft to dangerous drinkers. This suspicion has, unfortunately, bedevilled people all the time. We agree that we want to be tough and that there should be a twelve months' disqualification as a general rule. But just as in some cases the courts will have discretion to increase the penalty because 12 months is not enough, so we believe that they should have power to reduce the penalty when they think that 12 months' disqualification is too much.
People would think it a very strange law if a £100 fine were laid down without discretion. To a rich man. £100 might be nothing, whereas a £10 fine to a poor man might be a very great fine indeed. We do not determine the size of the fine in the House. We leave it to the court's

discretion to decide how much is necessary to make the penalty fit the crime. If this applies to other branches of the law, why should it not apply to disqualification, which the right hon. Lady admits is the real penalty? She has never answered this.
I wish to take a somewhat similar case to that referred to by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner)—a lorry driver who is found to have just over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood. The right hon. Lady assumed that this lorry driver had over 80 milligrammes in his blood when driving his lorry. She said that when people are driving lorries they should be particularly careful; and I agree 100 per cent. with her. But in my case the man was not driving his lorry. It was not any action which aroused the constable's suspicions, but purely in the course of a routine check—perhaps a licence check or something of that sort—during the driver's off time there is a smell of alcohol, the constable applies the test, and the man is found to have just over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in his bloodstream. The effect on him will be utterly catastrophic. He will lose not only his licence but his livelihood. The cause of the disaster will not be negligence in his work, as the Minister seemed to suggest, but a chance encounter during his off time. It is impossible to imagine anything less fair.
The Minister simply cannot have thought the matter out. I know very well that she has not been doing any thinking on this matter since 2nd January when she stated what her policy would be. She has re-enunciated the same thing today. [Laughter.] The right hon. Lady may laugh, but she is not a driver, nor a poor person. She does not know what it is like. [Laughter.] I am surprised that hon. Members opposite laugh. Obviously they have not been listening to what their hon. Friends have been saying. I am making very much the same speech as they made.

Mr. John Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman's objection that my right hon. Friend has not been thinking at all or that she has not been thinking since 2nd January?

Mr. Galbraith: No. I presume that the right hon. Lady must have been thinking, but I should have preferred her to be thinking between 2nd January, when,


naturally, with Christmas, she was under extreme pressure, and this date. I should have liked her to be doing some thinking since 2nd January, but, whether she has been doing any thinking or not, she has come to the same conclusion.
May I return to the case which I have been trying to quote from the Glasgow Herald. It illustrates the terrible repercussions which can occur when there is no discretion. I should like to quote what this man's agent said:
Until disqualification the accused had been a lorry driver earning a big wage. Now he is working as a labourer for very much less and living has become one long worry for him because of financial difficulties.
The agent added:
This has tended to turn him to drink.
The penalty was so severe that the man lost heart. Instead of acting as a deterrent, the penalty has driven him into doing the very thing it was intended to stop. For all I know the penalty in that case might have been just the same if the court had had the discretion which the Amendment would give it. However, I have instanced a case where a man was driving in a private and not a business capacity, and there can be no justification for the sort of harshness that is bound to arise under the Bill because the courts are not given discretion in this matter.
10.0 p.m.
I do not want to say anything else to offend the right hon. Lady, if I have already offended her. However, she and her party have claimed to have the interests of the working man at heart. If that is so, she must take steps to see that the automatic penalty of disqualification does not hit the working driver far harder than it will hit the occasional weekend motorist.
All hon. Members are concerned about the present state of affairs and we wish to hit the dangerous drinker as hard as we can. We want to make sure that when we hit, the penalty is not only adjusted to the degree of guilt but that its severity is adjusted to individual circumstances. We want to ensure that its impact is felt with the same force by different offenders, which is something which we in this House cannot do. We are members of a legislative body and not adjudicators. We cannot know the circumstances of every

case. We cannot know when 12 months' disqualification would be a comparatively light sentence and when 12 weeks' disqualification would involve dire hardship. Neither we nor the right hon. Lady can know these things. We must leave these matters to the court or we will not get justice, which is what we are seeking by the Amendment.
The last thing I wish to do on a matter which should be a non-party issue is to divide the House. I do so in the knowledge that it will place some hon. Gentlemen opposite in a difficult position. They have voiced their concern tonight and in the event of there being a vote they may have difficulty with their consciences. However, I do not see how, in fairness to the public, I can avoid asking the House to divide on this issue—that is, unless the right hon. Lady instructs her Parliamentary Secretary to help us; and I urge her, even at this late stage, to think again about this important matter.
We do not want to encourage softness to drinkers. We merely want to give discretion to the courts so that the punishment is adjusted to the circumstances of the offender and so that there is the same severity of punishment in each case. That will not happen under the Bill as drafted, and that is why I urge my hon. Friends to press the Amendment.

Sir H. Harrison: I agreed with very much of what the Minister said, although she did not address her remarks to the Amendment. We are particularly concerned about the punishment for first offenders. In Committee there was a great deal of agreement among the majority of hon. Members that the punishment was too severe for a first offence. The difference between the Committee was that my hon. Friends and I said that we would like to leave discretion to the magistrates while hon. Gentlemen opposite preferred a statutory punishment of one year because they did not trust magistrates. I say that with respect to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). Having given this matter a great deal of thought, I find myself sympathising with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner).
We keep on talking about men drinking. The Bill will apply to both ladies and men and I am worried about those first offenders who are lady drivers. The


right hon. Lady the Minister does not drive—I do not blame her—and she has made great publicity over the fact that she has got her husband to cut down the amount of gin he takes with tonic water at all the parties they attend.

Hon. Members: He does not drink at all now.

Sir H. Harrison: I think that she did not stop him altogether, but if I read the report aright, she said that he now drinks very little.
What will happen in the majority of cases, however, is that men going to parties and not wanting to restrict their drinking will say to their wives, many of whom will have the sort of slim figure which the right hon. Lady has—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman began his speech on

the Amendment. He has got right away from it now.

Sir H. Harrison: All that I wanted to point out was that such ladies who seldom drink may have one or two gins and be just over the 80 level. If such a woman drives and is caught, any period of disqualification will be serious. One can think of many married women who have young children, and a number of them motor their children to school. A disqualification would be a great hardship. In the case of a first offence, disqualification for six months would be quite enough. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts about this.

Question put, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 174.

Division No. 272.]
AYES
[10.8 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Batsford, Brian
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Peel, John


Blaker, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.


Braine, Bernard
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roots, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Doughty, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Webster, David


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. More and Mr. David Mitchell.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eve)
Nott, John





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Boardman, H.
Crawshaw, Richard


Allen, Scholefield
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cronin, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brooks, Edwin
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davidson,Jamee(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bence, Cyril
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dempsey, James


Bessell, Peter
Coe, Denis
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Dickens, James




Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Driberg, Tom
Luard, Evan
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; G'b's)
Lubbock, Eric
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Randall, Harry


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Redhead, Edward


Ellis, John
McCann, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey


English, Michael
MacColl, James
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Macdonald, A. H.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm. Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Robinson, W.O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roebuck, Roy


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Rose, Paul


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ryan, John


Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gardner, Tony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mason, Roy
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gregory, Arnold
Mellish, Robert
Steele,Thomas (Dumbartonshire,W.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mendelson, J. J.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanetly)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Taverne, Dick


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Thornton, Ernest


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openehaw)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Haseldine, Norman
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Richard (Caine Valley)


Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Murray, Albert
Wallace, George


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Newens, Stan
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian
Wilkins, W. A.


Jackson, Colln(B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Judd, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Woof, Robert


Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
Palmer, Arthur
Yates, Victor


Lawson, George
Pardoe, John



Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Gourlay and Mr. Whitlock.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 24, at the end to insert:
(3) Disqualification for a period exceeding the appropriate minimum period prescribed by statute may be for a period of time terminating upon the issue of a certificate by a medical practitioner, following upon treatment of the disqualified period for addiction to alcohol or drugs, that there is good cause to believe that such person has been substantially cured of that addiction.
This Amendment would add a subsection to Clause 4, which deals with the consequences of conviction of certain offences of driving or being in charge. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 deals with disqualification. The new subsection also deals with disqualification and would use the disqualification period for a useful purpose in certain cases—to try to cure addicts of alcohol or drugs and to prevent disqualified addicts from returning to the wheel while still addicts of alcohol or drugs.
I appreciate that Part 1 does not set out to deal with the heavy drinker or the confirmed drug taker. They may be dealt with in the law as it stands. The intention of Part 1 is to deal with the ordinary drinker when driving. But that is no bar to our trying to use the Bill as a vehicle for road safety and to deal with the heavy drinker and the confirmed drug taker.
I would remind the House that the disqualification Clause was originally in the Road Traffic Act of 1960, in Section 104, which was repealed and replaced by Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. The first two subsections of that Section 5 deal with the periods for which disqualification can be imposed. Subsection (1) says that, for those convicted of offences in Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule of that Act,
… the court shall order him to be disqualified for such period not less than 12 months …".


It then deals with the offenders under Part 2 of the Fifth Schedule and says that the court may order a defendant to be disqualified for such period as the court thinks fit.
In each case, the idea is expressed by the word "period" and it has been decided by the courts that, in the face of that, magistrates or quarter sessions cannot disqualify for an indefinite period. They may disqualify for life or for a fixed period but not for an indefinite period. Therefore, to disqualify, for example, a chronic alcoholic or a drug addict for a fixed period—say, 12 months—might be purposeless. He might come back to driving worse than ever. The court should have power to force a man to undergo treatment if he wants to get his licence back and if the court feels that he is addicted to alcohol or drugs. It is true that the Amendment would not affect a very great number of people, but it would affect a sufficient number who cause a sufficient number of deaths and injuries on the roads to justify legislation of this sort.
It is rather terrifying to think that, when it is discovered in the course of a prosecution that a driver is an addict either of drink or drugs, the court can merely disqualify him for a fixed period. It is possible, I suppose, that the court might use a probation order, but that is hardly appropriate when finding a man guilty of such an offence as driving when his skill is impaired by drink or drugs. I do not think that the court should use a probation order for disqualification from driving.
If the court can only impose a fixed period of disqualification, that man may be back on the road again, still an addict, in a comparatively short time. In the debate on the last Amendment, it was said again and again that disqualification is a deterrent. Undoubtedly it is. Perhaps it is a more effective deterrent certainly than a fine, perhaps even than a short term of imprisonment. We may perhaps say that disqualification is the most effective deterrent and leave it at that, but cannot we make use of the disqualification period to greater effect? Cannot we make it something more than merely a negative penalty—make it perhaps a positive and constructive device in road safety?

Mr. John Morris: I am sympathetic to the object of the Amendment, but I make the point immediately that, as drafted, it is ambiguous in that it is not clear when the certificate would be issued. It would appear that it could be issued at any time or, indeed, only after the man had served the statutory minimum. I would not have thought that the hon. Gentleman intended the certificate to be issued at any time. However, that is only a technical point of drafting. As I say, I am sympathetic to the object of the Amendment in that the addict is a person likely to succumb to temptation to drive whilst impaired and probably is a person who should not be holding a licence at all until cured.
Technically, this matter is at present dealt with by Section 100 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, because, there, the licensing authority has the power to revoke the licence or refuse to grant it if it appears to it that the person
…is suffering from a disease or physical disability likely to cause …
his driving to be a source of danger to the public, and the courts, of course, are required to inform the authority if, in the course of proceedings for a traffic offence, it appears to the court that the accused is suffering from a disease or disability of this kind. It would be for the medical officer of health of the authority concerned to decide, in the light of medical evidence, whether the person concerned was an alcoholic or drug addict and whether this was likely to make his driving dangerous.
There are, however, practical difficulties, as the hon. Member will be aware. For example, how are the courts or the licensing authorities to be informed? There is difficulty concerning the ethical code of the medical profession, which would forbid breach of confidence concerning the exact state of a patient. Another difficulty is that there is no accepted legal definition of alcoholism or dependence upon alcohol. I need not at this hour weary the House concerning the most widely accepted definition, that used by the World Health Organisation. There is this additional difficulty.
Having regard to my sympathy for the objects that the hon. Member has in mind, it is, however, possible to explore these practical difficulties of obtaining the


necessary information to enable the licensing authorities to decide upon the issue of licences. This could be done after negotiation with the British Medical Association. In spite of the severe practical difficulties which I have mentioned, I am willing to examine the object under-

lying the Amendment of ensuring that there is suitable treatment for addicts.

Mr. Graham Page: On that assurance, for which I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.

No. 21, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'preliminary' and insert 'breath'.—[Mr. John Morris.]

Clause 8.—(DETERMINATION OF PLATED WEIGHTS AND OTHER PARTICULARS, AND GOODS VEHICLE TESTS.)

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 11, line 2, leave out from 'of' to 'and' in line 4 and insert:
'any prescribed alteration to it or its equipment'.

No. 23, in page 11, line 6, leave out 'alteration of that nature' and insert 'such alteration'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 10.—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AS TO TYPE APPROVAL AND OTHER CERTIFICATES.)

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 15, to leave out lines 32 to 44 and to insert:
(2) The Minister may by regulations require that prescribed alterations in any of the relevant aspects of design, construction, equipment or marking made to any vehicle for which a manufacturer's certificate or a Minister's approval certificate is issued shall, subject to any exemption granted under the next following subsection, be notified to the Minister.
(3) The Minister may by notice in writing given to the manufacturer of goods vehicles or to the owner of a vehicle for which a Minister's approval certificate is issued—

(a) direct that any specified alteration in any of the said aspects to a vehicle to which the direction relates shall be notified to the Minister;
(b) exempt a vehicle to which the notice relates from all or any of the requirements of regulations under the last foregoing subsection, subject to compliance with any conditions specified in the notice.
(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 12 of this Act, the Minister may by regulations require that a manufacturer's certificate or Minister's approval certificate issued for any vehicle shall specify the regulations if any applicable to the vehicle under subsection (2) of this section at the time of the issue of the certificate, any additional alteration to that vehicle required by any direction under the last foregoing subsection to be notified to the Minister and any exemption applicable to that vehicle under that subsection.
This may appear a formidable and complicated Amendment, but I hope to

be able to explain it briefly. It arises from our discussions with manufacturers, operators' associations and trade unions about the question of type approval of vehicles. Indeed, the Amendment is proposed as a result of suggestions by representatives of manufacturers and other associations that the requirement to notify alterations to type approved vehicles should, as far as possible, be laid down in regulations. This would bring the requirement into line with similar requirements under the provisions of Clause 8 referring to alterations affecting plated weights. These notifiable alterations affecting plated weights have to be laid down by regulation.
To make doubly sure that the owner understands his obligation to notify alterations, the organisations which we have consulted agree that there is a case for a power, which the Amendment proposes to give, to require a manufacturer's certificate, or the corresponding certificate issued by the Ministry to non-massproduced vehicles, to contain a reference to the regulations applicable to the vehicle concerning notification of alterations.
The proposed Amendment contains a power to modify by ad hoc direction the obligations of general regulations regarding notifiable alterations. The modification could be by way of adding to the list of notifiable alterations or by way of giving an exemption from any or all of the notification obligations. The manufacturer's certificate of conformity, in such a case, would have to set out the direction in full. It is not thought that this would be an unnecessary burden upon manufacturers, because the power to make ad hoc directions is regarded as essentially a reserve power. It is hoped that it would not be necessary to use it unduly frequently, but only time and experience of the operation of the type approval scheme will provide the answer to this.
10.30 p.m.
Finally, the modifications by ad hoc direction are not likely to be of the same voluminous nature as the general regulations applicable to notifiable alterations. It has been suggested by interested organisations, and the Department is looking into the suggestion, which, prima facie, is a sensible one, that a guide to type approval be issued once the Bill


is passed. This guide would set out for the benefit of operators of goods vehicles and others concerned the action which they might need to take in differing circumstances. It would be much on the lines of similar pamphlets issued in respect of, for instance, the National Insurance Acts by what is now the Department for Social Security.
That is the scope of the Amendment, and I hope it will have the agreement of the House.

Mr. Galbraith: I would like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary just one or two questions, because this involves alterations, and in Committee I said I hoped that the need to notify alterations was not going to involve operators in a lot of unproductive paper work, and the Minister seemed at that stage to agree with me and said there was a possible danger of unnecessary bureaucratic proliferation of paper, and the whole matter was under discussion. He has now produced his proposal, and the Amendment refers to "prescribed alterations".
Yet surely the important thing is not so much the nature of the alterations as the effect which an alteration is likely to have on the performance, and hence on the safety, of the lorry. It is that, the performance and safety of the lorry, rather than the alteration itself, which we must keep our eye upon, otherwise there will be an endless amount of paper work. For example, brakes are very important. Will the operator have to seek approval before he changes his brake linings, or will he have those brake linings decided for him, or is this something he may do without notification? All that matters, it seems to me, is the effectiveness of the brakes; it is performance which counts.
I quite appreciate that a fundamental alteration should be notified, so far as that alteration and modification go, and I see a vehicle should be submitted for replating certificates; but I should like the Minister to confirm that he does not intend going beyond that, and is not going to impose on the operators a burden which will require them to complete forms every time they put their vehicles in a garage to have new parts fitted. I am sure he does not intend that; at least, I hope he does not; but

I should like him to confirm it in the House.
Just one other point I would raise with him. I see that the details of what are required are not only to be made by regulations which, properly, come to be laid before the House, but there is also in the new subsection (3) a reference to the Minister's direction. I do not know, but this is probably not at all sinister; but what does "direction" mean? I would be grateful if he would tell me whether this means some whim of the Minister is to have the force of law or whether this is just another way of saying that there will be an order placed before the House. If the Minister could say a few words on these points I would be grateful to him.

Mr. Graham Page: May I support the last point which my hon. Friend has just made? The Amendment is not at all clear as to how the Minister will carry out the obligations or rights under these three proposed new subsections. The Amendment starts off by saying that
The Minister may by regulations require that prescribed alterations
and so on. We see in Clause 26 what is meant by "prescribed". It means
prescribed by regulations made by the Minister".
We are then told in subsection (6) of Clause 26 that the regulation-making power of the Minister is as it is under Section 260 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. That means that such regulations must come before the House with the normal power of Members praying against them and the power of this House to annul them. So the Minister first makes the regulations and places them before the House, and they are subject to the negative procedure, but then, having made those regulations with the force of law, he can by the stroke of a pen, as I understand the Clause, nullify them either by directions or by exemptions.
I do not wish to make it an elaborate business for the Minister to give simple little exemptions in cases where this is necessary, but let us get it clear how far he will go in setting aside regulations which will have been approved by the House by their lying on the Table for 40 days or even by a Prayer against them being rejected. If the Minister is to


make regulations and then set them aside by directions or exceptions, it seems rather a farce. We ought to look closely at, and have a careful explanation of, the subsections before we agree to them.

Mr. Swingler: I am sorry if I did not fully explain this. It is a complicated matter, I agree. I shall endeavour to answer the questions that have been asked.
The point is that general regulations must and will be made. There will be general regulations imposing a particular set of type approval requirements on new vehicles of a given class, but once these general regulations have been made, models falling within the given class may be exceptional—here we are dealing with exceptional vehicles but perhaps individual prototypes—in that either they need not be subject to as many requirements about notification of alterations as others or they may be capable of additional alterations requiring notification beyond those set out in the general regulations.
In our conception as a result of our consultations with those interested in this, we cannot have a situation where the regulations generally have continually to be changed every time some exceptional model or component is type approved within the framework of a given set of type approval performance requirements. That is why these Amendments contain a power to modify by an ad hoc direction the application of the general regulations which will continue to apply regarding notifiable alterations. As I said, modification by an ad hoc direction by my right hon. Friend could be by way of either adding to the list of notifiable alterations or giving an exemption to any or all of the notifications. But I emphasise that here we are concerned with non-mass-produced vehicles.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) raised the question of the burden of these regulations upon manufacturers. I give an assurance straight away that it is not our intention to burden diesel operators, nor to burden the Ministry of Transport, by imposing requirements to notify comparatively trivial alterations such as normal replacement of parts. The notifiable alterations will be structural alterations affecting the plated weights or the performance re-

quirements imposed by type approval regulations. The regulations will deal with such things as the chassis frame construction, the braking system, tyres and wheel equipment, loadings of axles, suspension systems, and so on.
Any regulations will be subject under Clause 26(6) to prior consultation with the interested organisations. We shall therefore endeavour to meet what will undoubtedly be the desire of the interested organisations not to tie themselves up with over-complex or detailed regulations in trying to deal with what all must admit is a novel and difficult matter.
I hope, on the basis of these assurances, that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(USE OF GOODS VEHICLES WITHOUT THE RELEVANT CERTIFICATES.)

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 19, line 19, to leave out from 'required' to first 'to' in line 21 and to insert:
'by regulations under section 8 or regulations or directions under section 10'.
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The subsection as it stands talks of a requirement imposed by the plating certificate as regards the notification of alterations. Under Clause 8 (6,d) the plating certificate does not in fact impose any obligation to notify alterations. The certificate merely can be required, and in practice almost certainly will be required by regulations under Clause 8, to specify alterations the notification of which is required by regulations.
It is also necessary to amend the subsection to reflect the Amendments already proposed to Clause 10 by which the obligation to notify particular kinds of alterations to type-approved vehicles would be imposed by regulations or, in particular cases, by ad hoc directions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 19, line 22, at the end to insert:
(7) In any proceedings for an offence under the last foregoing subsection, it shall be a defence to prove—

(a) if the proceedings relate to an alteration required to be so notified by regulations under section 8 of this Act, that the alteration


was not specified in the relevant plating certificate in accordance with regulations under that section;
(b) if the proceedings relate to an alteration required to be so notified by regulations or directions under section 10 of this Act, that the regulations were not, or, as the case may be, the alteration was not, specified in the relevant manufacturer's certificate or Minister's approval certificate in accordance with regulations under section 10(4) of this Act.
This new subsection provides a good defence to a vehicle owner whose plating certificate issued by the Ministry, or whose certificate of conformity with type-approval issued by the manufacturer or by the Ministry, failed to meet the requirements of any regulations providing that the certificate in question should draw the owner's attention to the obligation to notify alterations. In the case of the plating certificate, such a provision would be made by the Minister by regulations under Clause 8 (6,d), and in the case of a manufacturer's certificate or Minister's approval certificate, the requirement for the certificate to draw the owner's attention to notifiable alterations will be made by regulation under the new Clause 10(4).
This good defence is a reasonable corollary of the requirements for specifying in the relevant documents the regulations or other conditions about notifying alterations which are applicable to a vehicle. One of the basic aims of the type-approval scheme is to simplify the performance and safety requirements for goods vehicles and so to make it easier for vehicle users to make sure that they are not in fact contravening the law.
It has to be borne in mind, moreover, that in the present legal framework the user who contravenes a vehicle construction requirement commits an absolute offence and has to be convicted, even though, if there are mitigating circumstances, he may get a light penalty or even a discharge.

Mr. Graham Page: This seems to show very little faith in the Department issuing the certificates. If I understand the Amendment aright, it means that, if the plating certificate does not say all that it ought to say, if someone has boobed in issuing the certificate, that is a defence to the action. For once, ignorance of the law is to be a defence, I presume. What is the position if the accused knows full

well what the requirements are, if he has received the notice in writing from the Minister, if he knows the alterations that are required, if he knows what ought to be on the plating certificate? He still has a defence. I think that it is letting him off rather lightly. How could it be that the plating certificate would be issued without all the relevant information on it?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I admit straight away that it is a requirement to which we have agreed as a result of discussions, because we appreciate the complexities and difficulties that may concern certain manufacturers or those who are affected by these difficult provisions, and we want to make quite clear in the Bill what the obligations on the vehicle user or owner are, and where he may have a defence if errors are made.
As I said previously, we are setting out on a novel path in the making of regulations, some of which involve very complicated issues, and we feel that it is reasonable that this so-called good defence should be available.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(LICENSING OF DRIVERS OF HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES.)

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 24, line 31 to leave out 'licence under Part V of the Act' and insert 'full licence'.
Perhaps we may consider with it Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 48, 49, 54 and 55, which are all consequential. The Amendment is designed to provide a simplification of language, and introduces a more concise term for the expression "heavy goods vehicle drivers' licence (other than a provisional licence)", substituting the words "full licence".

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 45, in page 24, line 32 to leave out '(other than a provisional licence)'.

No. 46, in page 24, line 38, to leave out from 'a' to 'authorising' in line 39 and insert 'full licence'.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 24, line 40, at the end to insert:
(3) Where in pursuance of section 193(4) of the principal Act (suspension or revocation) of licences under Part V of that Act) the licensing authority revokes such a licence, the authority may—

(a) order the holder to be disqualified indefinitely or for such period as the authority thinks fit for holding or obtaining a licence under the said Part V; or
(b) if the licence is a full licence and it appears to the authority that, owing to the conduct or physical disability of the holder of the licence, it is expedient to require him to comply with the prescribed conditions applicable to provisional licences under the said Part V until he passes the prescribed test of competence to drive heavy goods vehicles of any class, order him to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a full licence until he has, since the date of the order, passed such a test.

(4) Where the holder of a licence under the said Part V is disqualified under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection the licensing authority for the area where he resides may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, remove the disqualification, but so long as a disqualification continues in force a licence under the said Part V shall not be granted to him and any such licence obtained by him shall be of no effect.
(5) Where the holder of a full licence is disqualified under subsection (3)(b) of this section a licensing authority shall not thereafter grant him a full licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle of any class unless satisfied that he has since the disqualification passed the prescribed test of competence to drive vehicles of that class, and until he passes that test any full licence obtained by him shall be of no effect.
This Amendment is to provide the power for licensing authorities to disqualify a driver from holding a licence to drive heavy goods vehicles, where a driver has shown that he is clearly unsuitable to hold a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence. It is desirable that there should be no doubt that the licensing authority has the power to prevent him driving heavy goods vehicles, either indefinitely or for a fixed period.
That power resides in the hands of the licensing authority, who may take away the licence but does not have power to require a driver to pass another test before he can obtain another licence to drive heavy goods vehicles. The court which has found him to have committed certain driving offences has power to disqualify him from driving all motor vehicles until he has passed a driving
test, but that power is limited to ordering

a test prescribed under Part II of the principal Act.
Since the power to suspend or revoke a licence to drive heavy goods vehicles rests with the licensing authority, the power under the Amendment should similarly rest with the licensing authority.

Sir D. Renton: Could the hon. Gentleman assure us that this is no new departure; that this is merely a revision of existing powers on the part of licensing authorities to deprive not only the holders of goods vehicle licences of those licences but to revoke the driver's licence, or withhold it as well? Does such power exist at the moment, or is it new?

Mr. Swingler: We are dealing with a new provision here because we are dealing with a special licence now introduced. That is why it is a provision of this kind.

Sir D. Renton: I realise this is not a Committee stage—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member cannot speak more than once. We are not in Committee.

Sir D. Renton: May I have leave to speak, having previously asked a question? The answer we have received seems to me to mean that there is an important new departure taking place on this Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: No.

Sir D. Renton: In that case, either the hon. Gentleman did not understand the question or I did not understand the answer.

Mr. Swingler: Perhaps I can clear it up. Powers to this effect already exist in Section 193(4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, for suspension or revocation of licences. So the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that this is not a new provision. It is in relation to a new provision, for these special licences, but the origin of it lies in the Road Traffic Act, 1960.

Sir D. Renton: I was interrupted in my speech. As I understand it, this is not a new departure, in the sense that the licensing authority is not for the first time being given the power to revoke a driver's licence. It is a point we need to be quite sure about.

Mr. Swingler: I am sorry. The right hon. and learned Member has succeeded in confusing me. The provision of these licences, he will appreciate, is a new departure in Part II of this Bill. That is why the same power concerning revocation of the licence must be made in this Bill, but if the right hon. and learned Member is asking whether a novel principle is involved, my answer is "No" The right hon. and learned Member will find that powers to that effect originate in Section 193(4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.

Mr. Graham Page: I am still at a loss. The position under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, Section 193(4) seems to be that the Traffic Commissioners may revoke a driver's licence and not just a goods vehicle licence. The subsection reads:
A heavy goods vehicle driver's licence shall, unless previously revoked, continue in force for three years from the date on which it is expressed to take effect, but may at any time be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority of the area in which it was granted on the ground that, by reason of his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle or of physical disability, the holder is not a fit person to hold such a licence; …
There, the licensing authority has full power to suspend the driving licence of a heavy goods vehicle driver.
There is some reason for the present Amendment giving some extra powers to the licensing authority. As I understand it, an extra power which it gives is that the driver's licence can continue to be suspended if he is committing any offence under the present Bill, and also that he will not hold any licence under the present Bill so long as he is disqualified under Section 193 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.
What my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is concerned to know is whether this is a new departure. It is a new departure to the extent that the powers are applied to the Bill, but it is not a new departure in principle. The licensing authority has had the power under Section 193 to revoke a licence previously, though it comes as a surprise to me to discover it. That is merely being applied to the provisions under the present Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: May I raise one further point? Although the Amendment also

gives the licensing authority power to say that a licence shall not be returned until the holder has passed a driving test to drive a heavy goods vehicle, that provision was not in Section 193 previously, and, to that extent, it is a new departure, is it not?

Mr. Swingler: This element is a new departure. It is not a new departure that has power to suspend or revoke on the basis of the principle that I have mentioned. However, the licensing authority has not previously had power to require a driver to pass another test. Part of the purpose of this Amendment is to give the licensing authority power to require him to take another test, and that is a novel provision.

Mr. Galbraith: The discussion which we have had shows the great difficulty in which the House is placed if a fairly complicated Amendment of this nature is brought in at a late stage. We cannot discuss it as we could in Committee. If the Minister has other legislation in mind, I hope that she will not again introduce such complicated Amendments at a late stage. They are not appropriate to the Report stage of a Bill. I am in a rather highly favoured position, because the hon. Gentleman wrote to me about the matter, for which I am grateful to him.

Mr. Robert Cooke: We are concerned with heavy goods vehicles in the Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman will recall that I have had some trouble with his Ministry about a case in my constituency of a commercial traveller who was told that he had to have a goods licence for his vehicle because he carried samples which were for sale. When my constituent pointed out that they were not for sale, he was told that, at the discretion of the local licensing authority, he had to have a goods licence for his vehicle because the samples were very heavy.
I have had correspondence with the Ministry which seems to suggest that a professional musician who plays something like a piccolo can use a private car to drive himself round, whereas, if he plays a heavy instrument such as a harp, he may need a heavy goods licence. Is it the fact that a local licensing authority can at will decide the sort of


licence that one must take out for a vehicle?

Mr. Swingler: I should be delighted to enter into details of the cases raised by the hon. Gentleman if I had them at my disposal. However, we are at the moment supposed to be discussing heavy goods vehicles drivers' licences, and I should not be in order if I tried to answer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not intervene earlier because I was not entirely clear myself. I am clear now that what the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said is out of order on this Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry if I gave a false impression. I do not want to leave the hon. Gentleman in any doubt that I have had an extremely unsatisfactory correspondence with his Ministry on this point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to inform the Minister about it on another occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 48, in page 25, line 7, leave out from 'a' to 'to' in line 9 and insert:
'full licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle of any class'.

No. 49, in line 13, leave out from 'class' to second 'a' in line 14 and insert:
'corresponding to a full licence and not being'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, Amendment No. 50, in page 25, line 21, to leave out from 'revoking' to second 'on' in line 24 and insert
'any Northern Ireland licence and of making an order under subsection (3) of this section as is conferred in relation to a licence under Part V of the principal Act by section 193(4) of that Act and the said subsection (3).'.
This Clause unamended confers on licensing authorities the same powers in relation to the suspension or revocation of a Northern Ireland heavy goods vehicle licence the same power as is conferred on a licensing authority in relation to heavy goods vehicles licences issued in this country. The purpose of the Amendment is to confer on licensing

authorities the same powers to disqualify, so far as driving heavy goods vehicles in this country is concerned, the holders of Northern Ireland heavy goods vehicle licences as apply to the holders of such licences issued in Great Britain.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, Amendment No. 51, in page 25, line 26, to leave out 'that subsection' and to insert 'the said section 193(4).
This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, Amendment No. 52, in page 25, line 27 after 'licences)', to insert:
'and of the said subsection (3)'.
This Amendment is required to include within the appeals procedure set out in Section 195(1) of the principal Act appeals by holders of Northern Ireland heavy goods vehicle drivers' licences against a disqualification order under the new subsection (3) of this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.)

Further Amendments made: No. 54, in page 26, line 16, leave out "provisional or other" and insert "full or provisional".

No. 55, in line 30, leave out "licence, other than a provisional", and insert "full".—[Mr. Swingler.]

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, Amendment No. 56, in page 27, line 13, to leave out from "different" to the end of line 15 and to insert
provision may be made by the regulations for different cases".
This Clause enables the Minister to make different regulations in respect of different classes of vehicles. The purpose of the Amendment is to give greater flexibility to the power to make regulations by giving the Minister scope to exempt certain classes of persons from the need to comply with the provisions of the Act in prescribed circumstances. For example, it may be considered desirable to exempt drivers who are entitled to a "claimed" licence under the transitional provisions in Schedule 15 of the principal Act, as amended by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 of the Bill, from the need to undergo medical examination as


well as from the need to take a driving test.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment selected is No. 27.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, Amendment No. 57, in page 27, line 43, to leave out
Expressions used in the last foregoing
and insert:
'In the last foregoing section and this section "full licence" means a licence under Part V of the principal Act other than a provisional licence and other expressions used in that'.
This Amendment is required to provide a definition of the term "full licence" as used in Clauses 18 and 19, and is consequential on a series of Amendments.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Amendment No. 57. I thought that you called Amendment No. 27, the one immediately before it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I called Amendment No. 27.

Mr. Swingler: I am sorry. I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 27, line 15, at the end insert:
(2) Any person who contravenes a provision of regulations under this section, a contravention of which is declared by the regulations to be an offence, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20.
The regulations to be made under Clause 19(1) of the Bill will, in the main, refer to administrative matters. The Minister may want to create offences, for example, preventing a person holding more than one licence. The Bill, as drafted, makes no provision for a breach of the regulations to be an offence or for any penalty for the offence. The Amendment is required in order to remedy the omission.

Sir D. Renton: Earlier this evening I was blaming the Government for trying to have minimum offences, but on this I feel that the maximum sentence proposed of £20 may not be enough to cover the worst type of case. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that most of the matters mentioned in Clause 19(1,a-k) are fairly minor administrative matters. But the one to which he specifically referred,

namely, the one under subsection (1, f) making
provision for preventing a person holding more than one licence and for facilitating the indentification of licence holders;
could be a very serious matter.
I could imagine circumstances in which a maximum penalty of £20 might not be enough, even at the present value of money. If the value of money should go down with any rapidity over the next five years it could become quite a trivial fine to cover the worst type of offence. I realise that there is nothing that we can do at the moment but agree to the Amendment, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the possibility of another place making this fine as much as £50. He could find that the holding of more than one licence enabled people completely to circumvent the somewhat elaborate provisions in this part of the Bill, and we should be careful about that.

Mr. Carlisle: I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could explain further Clause 19. As I understand it, it lays down powers for the Minister to make regulations, which presumably would be done by orders subject to the negative or affirmative procedure of the House. In the Bill there is no reference to any offence being committed at all, and then at the Report stage we get this Amendment making it an offence to contravene the regulations under this Clause.
Are the powers already in existence which would make it an offence to be in breach of a regulation made under this Clause, and are we merely concerned with the maximum penalty which could be involved, or has the Minister decided at this stage to make an additional criminal offence which did not previously exist?
I would have thought that, under the Construction and Use Regulations, it has always been an offence to be in breach of regulations made by the Minister. I wonder what the normal penalties were for such breaches and why we have to have this specific Clause.

Mr. Swingler: Offences and penalties are contained in different provisions of the Bill and, of course, in previous Acts. Here we are dealing solely with regulations to be made under Clause 19(1). I admit straight away that an error has


occurred in so far as the Bill as it stands makes no provision for a breach of the regulations to be an offence and makes no provision for a penalty for such an offence. This omission we have repaired after further consideration. We will certainly take into account what has been said in the light of previous discussions on Report, which, I am sure, impelled the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the point about what the penalties should be for certain types of offence. Therefore, my right hon. Friend will certainly consider his point about whether the maximum penalty should be increased by an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Graham Page: The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who asked whether there was any penalty under the 1960 Road Traffic Act for breach of regulations. The Minister is given power in Clause 19 to make regulations to effect the provisions of Part V of the principal Act, which also grants the Minister the regulation-making power. Surely there were penalties under the 1960 Act for offending against regulations. We wanted to compare the figure of £20 in the Bill with any figure which there may have been in the 1960 Act.
I cannot believe that regulations made under the 1960 Act could be offended against without there being any penalty. Although I have the Act in my hand, I cannot put my finger on the Section imposing penalties for offences against regulations under the Act. However, I will continue looking and talking while the Parliamentary Secretary looks at the message which has come along the row to him.
I am sure that there must be some penalty under the 1960 Act for anyone offending against regulations. If it is less than £20, I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on having raised it to £20; if it is already £20, it should be more in the Bill; if it is more than £20 in the 1960 Act, why are we raising it in the Bill?

Mr. Swingler: Under the 1960 Act—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will already know, as he seems to have it off by heart—Section 239 makes a breach of the regulations under that Act an offence, for which the penalty is a maximum fine of £20. I am advised that that does not

apply to regulations under Clause 19 of the Bill, which shows that my original exposition was correct, and we are dealing simply and solely with Clause 19(1) and the regulations which my right hon. Friend may make under it. But that does not mean that no offences or penalties are provided for under the principal Act of 1960, Section 239, which also provided a maximum penalty of £20.
The hon. Gentleman might find that a little confusing, but he will see that we are directly following the provision for regulations under the principal Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 27, line 43, to leave out
'Expressions used in the last foregoing' and insert 'In the last foregoing section and this section "full licence" means a licence under Part V of the principal Act other than a provisional licence and other expressions used in that'.
This Amendment is required to provide a definition of the term "full licence" in Clauses 18 and 19. It is consequential on the series of Amendments which we have just discussed.

11.15 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: I can well see the need for this Amendment, but on the matter of the convenience of those who will have to study this rather complicated legislation in the years to come, might I ask if it would not be better that all these definitions should be in the interpretation Clause which appears later in the Bill? If we have definitions scattered throughout the Bill, it would seem to me that much more time will have to be spent in understanding the Bill. One will have to spend much more time on research if the Bill goes through as it is than if definitions were gathered all in one place.
If one turns to Clause 26, one finds a number of definitions under the heading 'Supplemental', and in Clause 27 there are further definitions with the marginal note, 'General provisions as to interpretation etc.' I would, therefore, constructively suggest that all these definitions should be in the one interpretation Clause because then everyone would find it at least a little easier to follow the intention and purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Swingler: I think that the place which is most convenient for this is in the section of the Bill to which it refers.


I take note of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the convenience which is served by having those interpretations which deal with the whole of the Statute in one part of the Bill for purposes of convenience. I promise him that I will see what action we can take to tidy up the Bill in that respect.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.—(MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 28, line 36, at the end to insert:
'alternatively or in addition the carriers' licence in respect of the vehicle concerned may be suspended for a period of up to one year'.
The object of this Amendment is to make available to the court the right to suspend a carrier's licence in respect of a vehicle which has infringed the provisions of Part 11. The Minister and her hon. Friend may recall that I introduced this during the Committee stage and found support from all quarters for it. I could not, therefore, understand the hesitancy of the Government in accepting it when the Minister is so severe with other penalties in Part 1 of the Bill. At least, after some further pressure, the Parliamentary Secretary said he would look at this again. Subsequently, however, the hon. Gentleman wrote to me to the effect that he could do nothing at this stage. I should like to take the opportunity to thank him, incidentally, for writing to me on various matters relevant to the Bill, but what we are concerned with at the moment is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I would remind the Committee that the Geddes Committee says on page 46 of its Report,
Only the loss of a licence would really hurt".
On the same page, the Report states,
This chance"—
of losing a licence,
is and has been in practice so remote that we doubt whether fear of licence action has seriously influenced the behaviour of road transport operators in their attitude to safety matters".
Personally, I am not surprised that this is the conclusion of the Committee, because in an article in The Sunday Times, to which I have already referred, one of the licensing authorities is reported as having said:

But whenever we crack down hard on any haulier, virtually putting him out of business, he appeals to the Licensing Tribunal and they invariably give him a second, third, or 203rd chance".
So, that means that the present system is simply not working so far as safety enforcement is concerned. I suggest that the Government knows this fact as well as I do, but the Government are doing nothing. This inaction is all the stranger when one remembers paragraph 100 of the Minister's White Paper which, in dealing with relative costs of carrying by road or rail, states:
These studies need not delay steps to improve the safety and efficiency of vehicles …
It adds:
The necessary new powers will be sought in the Road Safety Bill.
But the most important power of all, the one that will make the reforms work, is not being sought. It is not in the Bill. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us why not. The Government would have the whole House behind them if they acted. All they do, however, is procrastinate and delay. It is shocking. The right hon. Lady makes fine speeches about safety, but when it comes to doing something—

Mr. Archie Manuel: Dear, dear.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) says, "dear, dear". One can imagine the fiery speech he would make about this if our positions were reversed. Instead of the right hon. Lady doing something, there is always this excuse for inaction. I ask her to think again. If she does not like my wording, there is still an opportunity for her to do something in another place. What we require is a real sanction that will bite on these bad lorry operators. It is not in the Bill and, without it, the Bill is unworthy of its name.

Sir Ronald Russell: I support the Amendment. It is about three years since I raised this with the Ministry of Transport—in April, 1964. I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who was then Parliamentary Secretary, saying that the matter would be cleared up. He only had six months to do it. The present Government have had 2¼ years.


I support the plea for something to be done. There was the case, reported in more than one newspaper a month ago, in which a lorry was found to have a defective speedometer, rear lights out of order, no proper mirrors, the rear number plate not properly marked and no warning instrument. The driver drove it to a police station because he was so disgusted, although he knew he risked the sack—which he got. He was discharged at the subsequent court hearing. The firm was fined £25 out of the maximum of £50. That was ridiculous in the circumstances.
Even the proposed increase to a maximum of £200 may not be adequate. suggest that taking away the licence of the vehicle concerned for a specified period is the only way to deal with this situation. I hope that this matter will be cleared up and that the Government will get tough on lorries in a dangerous condition, for these are killer lorries, and they can also damage other vehicles and property.

Sir D. Renton: I wonder that the right hon. Lady does not blush when she considers the contrast in this Bill. On the one hand, a person puts a 30-ton lorry on the road with faulty brakes and the most that can happen is a fine of £200. There is no suspension at all. There is nothing analogous to compulsory disqualification. But a person who drives a Mini-Minor with more than the prescribed quantity of alcohol in the blood can be disqualified for a year and perhaps lose his living for a year.
Accepting the principle of the argument that the Minister put forward and which was accepted by the House on a Division earlier, I ask the right hon. Lady to bear in mind what she said then—that she is anxious to improve road safety by deterring. The Amendment offers her a reasonable opportunity of deterring. The penalty would be within the discretion of the court and, therefore, would not have the disadvantage of compulsory disqualification even for a first offender that we had earlier. I beseech her to compare the earlier provisions of the Bill with the position under this Clause. A 30-ton lorry is a pretty lethal thing, just as lethal if it goes out without brakes as a Mini-Minor if driven by somebody with a certain amount of alcohol in his blood. The

Government should seriously consider my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: I will not detain the House for more than a minute, but I support with all the vigour I can command the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) in moving the Amendment and by his right hon. and hon. Friends. Part II of the Bill is of at least equal importance to Part I and I should be very disturbed if the Minister did not accept the Amendment, which is clearly imperative if the Bill is to have any teeth.
The arguments which have been advanced in support of the Amendment do not require backing from me or from any other right hon. or hon. Member, on either side. I only beg the right hon. Lady, whatever she may have had in mind when she entered the Chamber, at least to give us a favourable indication of her acceptance of the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said, the Amendment was discussed at considerable length and in a high state of feeling in Committee. That was considered fully by my right hon. Friend and we have gone deeply into the question of whether concurrent powers to suspend and revoke licences as proposed in the Amendment should be given both to the courts and to the licensing authorities.
Let there be no doubt about my right hon. Friend's determination to see that the power of suspension and revocation of licences is used to drive off the roads the killer lorries and those who have been convicted of dangerous offences. Indeed, as a result of the discussion which took place and the contributions made from all sides in Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend sent a special letter to all licensing authorities a few weeks ago in which she said—I quote merely the last paragraph:
I would urge licensing authorities to consider using their powers of revocation and suspension more frequently in cases where operators have increased accident risks by causing or permitting any of the safety offences listed in the Fourteenth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act.
That letter clearly demonstrates my right hon. Friend's determination to express the feeling during our discussions in Committee.


Moreover, I am not at all satisfied, nor is my right hon. Friend, with the extent to which the powers of suspension and revocation of licences have been used hitherto. They are, however, used much more now than they were just a few years ago. A few years ago there was negligible use of the power of suspension or revocation of licences. I am pleased to say that in the last three years the figures for suspensions, for example, have risen from 11 to 181 to 651. To be fair, the figure of 651 for last year included one particularly bad case involving 350 vehicles. Nevertheless, those figures for suspensions clearly show in the last two years a sharply increased use of the power of suspension.
After deep and careful consideration, however, we cannot accept the proposal made in the Amendment. We do not consider that the way to deal with the problem of suspension and revocation is to give the power concurrently to the courts as well as to those authorities which are charged to issue licences and to ensure that people to whom the licences are issued are fit persons for the purpose.
11.30 p.m.
It will be clear to hon. Gentlemen, of course, that if this Amendment were accepted there would arise a very difficult situation between magistrates and licensing authorities, especially in such cases where the magistrates refused to exercise the power of suspending a licence, if it had been granted to them, thereby presumably inhibiting the licensing authority from doing so. I think it should be clear to hon. Gentlemen that if we are going to continue to place in licensing authorities the power to grant licences and to consider whether certain persons are fit or unfit to have licences for vehicles, these are the authorities that should be armed with the power of suspending or revoking the licence.
My right hon. Friend is not at all satisfied about the channel of communication between the courts and the licensing authorities. This was something that arose out of our Committee discussions. My right hon. Friend thinks it very important that licensing authorities should be made aware of all convictions of hauliers for safety offences so that there is no question that all such convictions

are immediately brought to the attention of the licensing authorities for them to consider whether the case is one that is appropriate for using the power to suspend or revoke.
We are therefore at the moment in consultation with the Home Office for the purpose of establishing, through liaison with the police, the necessary channel of communication to ensure that all convictions on such offences are brought to the notice of the licensing authority.
Furthermore, my right hon. Friend is aware of the very many comments made, including those by some of the Traffic Commissioners themselves, that the present powers of the licensing authorities to order suspensions are powers that ought to be strengthened, and that many licensing authorities are at the moment inhibited from using their powers by the provisions of the Statute that lay down certain things in regard to the persistence of the offence, the seriousness of the offence, and so on.
My right hon. Friend is at present engaged in a complete review of the licensing system, and she intends in the course of this year to bring forward a major Bill on transport to deal with the matter of the future of the licensing system, including the powers of the authorities to grant licences, to suspend them and to revoke them. It is her intention that after her review the powers of the licensing authorities will be strengthened so that there are no provisions in the Act that circumscribe their ability to act in cases of serious breaches in order that they may fully exercise the power of suspension and revocation which we agree should follow upon the conviction of offenders in the courts for serious offences in the matter of road safety.
I hope the House will agree that this is the correct manner of dealing with the undoubted and widespread demand that something should be done to drive the killer lorries off the road, and that with the undertaking I have given that we will legislate on this matter in the major transport Bill my right hon. Friend is bringing forward, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: We are dealing with a series of offences and we are dealing with what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary


has himself described as killer lorries and accidents in which many people are maimed and killed on the roads. Although I am sure the whole House is glad to hear that the channel of communication between the courts and the licensing authorities is to be improved, and although I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has throughout welcomed the spirit of this Amendment, I find it a little difficult, frankly, to see why he is not prepared to accept the Amendment.
In Commitee this Amendment was moved from our side, and it was in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said he would certainly reconsider this matter to see what could be done and report at Report stage. It seems to me that the fact that the licensing authority has power to remove a carrier's licence should not in itself be held to prohibit or prevent the court from acting where it believes it right to act in the case of a vehicle.
We are concerned with causing or allowing to be on the road a vehicle the condition of which is dangerous; we are dealing with breaches of the Construction and Use Regulations relating to the brakes, tyres and steering gear of a vehicle. One is really in this rather fantastic position, that a person may be charged with an offence under Section 64(2) of the principal Act, he can be fined up to £200, he himself, the driver, can be disqualified from driving—but there is nothing to prevent another person from being put to drive the lorry of whose condition, not of the driver himself, complaint has been made. The real criminal in the case, the state of the lorry, the courts would appear to have no powers to deal with.
The hon. Gentleman says, "We now intend to see that the courts shall notify the licensing authorities immediately of any cases"—where vehicles are involved—but surely, even if that occurs, there will be a delay? Presumably the licensing authority has then to decide whether to ask the man to appear before it. During that time the vehicle will still be able to be used; it cannot be kept off the road. The main duties of the licensing authorities, as I understand it, are, firstly, to see that there are adequate and not too many vehicles on the road

for general purposes; and secondly, when a licence has to be renewed, to see that the state of the man's fleet is such that he has not shown himself, by the state of his fleet, to be incapable, but, by the state of his fleet, to be a proper person to have a carrier's licence.
Have the licensing authorities the power which we propose the courts should have in the case, to remove an individual vehicle? Are they limited to suspending his licence as such? [Interruption.] I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would deal with this point, if he is saying that when it comes back to the licensing authority, as well as the general power to suspend his licence, it also has power to strike off his vehicle. I am grateful to the Minister for implying that that is the position. So what is there against allowing the courts to have the power and act the moment an offence is proved in the courts?
The final point I would make is this. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that if we gave the courts powers to do this that would interfere with the licensing authorities. Frankly, I do not see why this should be so. For an analogy from a different part of the criminal law, let us take the case of a person on probation and perhaps he commits another offence. The court before which he appears for the second offence may deal with him for that offence without in any way inhibiting the power of the court which put him on probation to call him back and deal with the previous offence. I do not see why giving the court power to remove a vehicle off the road for up to twelve months rather than merely disqualifying the driver should inhibit the decision of the licensing authorities to call the licenceholder before them and take other steps, even steps of greater severity, if they felt that they were justified in all the circumstances.
Although, obviously, we are glad to hear that the Minister is proposing further legislation and to hear of the letters that have now been sent out and of the steps that are being taken, I should have hoped that, in view of the unanimous support that the proposal got from the Committee, the Minister might have felt able to accept it at this stage in this Bill.

Mr. Swingler: I should like to put one point on the record. The licensing authorities are in a position to suspend licences in respect of one vehicle, two vehicles, six vehicles, or however many vehicles the man has for which the licensing authority has granted licences. This is the essence of the point.
If hon. Gentlemen arrive at the conclusion that licensing authorities should no longer exercise this power, then we should reconsider the position of the authorities as charged with the responsibility of saying whether a man is fit or not to hold licences to run as a road haulier in respect of one vehicle, or six, twelve or 20 vehicles, or whatever number it may be. But if they are under Statute charged—this has been the system—with the responsibility of making that judgment about the fitness or unfitness of the man to be a haulier and have a licence, it seems right and proper that they should be empowered and entitled to exercise the power of revocation.
Hon. Gentlemen must recognise that there has been a considerable change of view about this matter over the years. Many licensing authorities say that their difficulty is not that they do not wish to exercise the power to suspend and revoke licences but that when Parliament laid down the nature of their powers it inserted words stating that the powers of suspension and revocation of licences should be used only where offences were persistent or where they were extremely serious. Parliament circumscribed the powers of licensing authorities in a number of ways.
That is why my right hon. Friend is considering not the transfer of the powers to inflict this penalty but whether we should not reconsider the whole position of the licensing system and the terms of reference given to the licensing authorities about the treatment of offences against safety provisions and other things so that they can exercise their functions in the way in which, obviously, a majority of hon. Gentlemen wish them to do so. I think that that is a far better way to proceed—my right hon. Friend will have some announcement to make on it in the near future—than by producing what might be a most unfortunate conflict between the magistrates and the licensing authorities over the exercise of this power.

Mr. Galbraith: Could the hon. Gentleman answer one question for me? Am I right in thinking that when the licensing authority gets information that a vehicle has been badly maintained and there has been a court case about it, it can act immediately if it wants to? Or does it have to have another inquiry before it is able to act—instead of there being just one case in the court, there is a second case in front of the licensing authority? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: The licensing authority has its own procedure of calling before it the person to whom it has granted the licence, of considering the offences which have been committed, and of deciding, according to its terms of reference, what penalties should be imposed. That is the procedure which has been adopted up to now. Hon. Members are demanding—and it is a spreading view—that the power to suspend and revoke licences should be more widely used. It is clear to us that that involves some change in the statutory terms of reference for licensing authorities. I can give the assurance that my right hon. Friend is considering what new terms of reference they should be given so that they may exercise the power of suspension and revocation of licences in a satisfactory way.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 29, line 11, to leave out from the first 'vehicle' to 'a' in line 13.
I suggest that with this Amendment we might also discuss Government Amendment No. 30.
The purpose of subsection (3) has always been, and continues to be, the control of weight markings on a goods vehicle so that users and enforcement authorities will not be misled as to the weights at which by virtue of the plating scheme the vehicle is permitted to operate.
The purpose of the Amendments is to cater for the development in thinking which has resulted from continuing consultations between the Ministry and the interested organisations of operators,


manufacturers, trades unions and local authorities about the nature of the markings to be put on vehicles.
An incidental effect of the Amendments is to simplify the subsection, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) in Standing Committee as a piece of "legal jargon". A further effect of the Amendments is to make the subsection sufficiently flexible to deal with any possible further developments in thinking as a result of our continuing consultations.
The objective is to mark on goods vehicles, by means of suitable plates, the legal maximum gross, axle and "train" weights at which individual vehicles or vehicle-combinations will be permitted to operate on roads in this country, and in addition, in cases where the design weights, on the basis of criteria to be laid down in the plating regulations, exceed particular limits laid down in the Construction and Use Regulations, the approved design weights.
When draft regulations have been prepared in the light of the consultations, there will be the widest possible circulation of these for comment by interested organisations as required by Clause 26(6).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 30, in page 29, line 16, leave out from 'Act' to first 'the' in line 21 and insert:
'the vehicle shall not, while it is used on a road, be marked with any other weights, except other plated weights, other weights required or authorised to be marked on the vehicle by regulations under section 64 of the principal Act or weights so authorised for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Minister and marked in the prescribed manner; and in the event of a contravention of the foregoing provision'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Mr. Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 29, line 23, at the end to insert:
(4) Paragraph 19 of Part II of the First Schedule to the 1962 Act shall cease to have effect in respect of an offence under section 64(2) of the principal Act in so far as such an offence relates to goods vehicles.
I shall move the Amendment as shortly as I can, because it is now over 13 hours since the Parliamentary Secretary and I were discussing a Prayer.
This is an important Amendment relating to what is known as the totting up of offences. We were pleased when in Standing Committee the Parliamentary

Secretary acknowledged that this is a difficult problem. He went further and acknowledged that there was considerable inequity about the present state of the law. Therefore, we are disappointed that the Government have done nothing about it and have not brought forward any Amendment to deal with this hardship.
Section 64 of the 1960 Act creates the offence of using on a road a vehicle which does not comply with the regulations relating to construction, weight and equipment. By virtue of No. 19 in the list of offences in Part II of the First Schedule of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, that becomes an offence which involves discretionary disqualification. The totting up provisions are contained in Section 5(3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, which provides that a person becomes liable to lose his licence automatically if he has been convicted during the preceding three years of two offences specified in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to that Act and is then convicted of a third offence. Parts I and II of the First Schedule contain many offences, some fairly serious and others less serious. Among the lesser offences are offences such as speeding, contravening a traffic regulation, failing to obey a sign or leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position.
The hardship to which I referred in Committee relates to a small haulier, for example, a man who runs a fleet of, say, 20 vehicles. If any of those vehicles are found with defective brakes he may be charged, under offence No. 19 of Part II of the First Schedule of the 1962 Act, with causing or permitting the vehicle to be used in breach of a requirement as to brakes. The vital point is that he will be convicted whether he knew the brakes were defective and whether he had any real responsibility. It is true that the driver will also be charged, but the haulier will be convicted. In Committee I gave examples of a haulier who had two endorsements on his licence during a preceding period of three years for speeding while driving, not as a haulier, but in his private capacity. I want to emphasise that they had nothing to do with his business as haulier or the way he conducted that business.
It seems to me and to many other hon. Members on both sides of the House totally illogical that when a haulier is


charged with a technical offence in relation to one of his lorries he may lose his driving licence because it so happens that two years before he was convicted on two occasions of driving at more than 30 miles per hour on a journey that was in no way connected with his business. The Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged in Committee how unfair that was, and went on to say that the small haulier is penalised whereas the limited company which runs a much larger fleet of vehicles is not. He said:
There is a second area of inequity in the cases that we are considering here as between the small haulier and the corporate body. Clearly the totting up provision cannot be applied to the corporate body—the limited liability company that is running a large fleet of vehicles. But it can be applied to the man who is running five vehicles and who owns them directly. He can be hauled before the court, in addition to the driver of the vehicle, on the third referable offence, and he can have his driving licence taken away for a period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 20th December, 1966; c. 396.]
We therefore have the position that the Parliamentary Secretary—in fact, the Government—acknowledged the very great injustice of the present state of the law. It seems astonishing to me that the Government are not prepared to put it right tonight, at any rate for goods vehicles. We have thought about the matter a great deal on this side of the House. We realise that under the Bill we can deal only with goods vehicles, but later on the law must be amended to bring in all classes of vehicles. Because we cannot deal with all vehicles now it is monstrous that the Government are not prepared to tackle this part of the problem.
When Parliament identifies a defect in the law which is causing considerable hardship to worthy men, the Government should take the opportunity to put it right at once. There is no excuse for further delay about the matter, and I therefore press the hon. Gentleman urgently to tell us that he is prepared to think about it again.

Mr. Swingler: Since the Committee stage of the Bill I have wrestled with the doctrine of vicarious liability as best I can. I have come up against a number of obstacles, a few of which I shall mention. I am prepared to go on, and so is my right hon. Friend, to get

rid of what we recognised at Committee stage was an inequity.
We are not prepared to remove the totting up provisions in this respect altogether, nor to make a serious softening of the penalties. In Committee, I said that my right hon. Friend recognises the unfairness to a person who for legal purposes is the user of a vehicle and is convicted for using even though he did not actually drive. Under existing law, the conviction would count towards totting up, and on conviction for a third reckonable offence he would be liable to mandatory disqualification in the absence of mitigating circumstances. In the case of a small man, I readily recognise the problem of inequity.
I have considered very carefully the drafting of an Amendment in order to meet this special point, without an all-round softening of the penalties in this respect which include mandatory disqualification. Closer examination of that problem has revealed that even in the anomaly arising out of the vicarious use of a defective vehicle, the same sort of problem would arise—and this is the difficulty—for the offence of causing or permitting the use of a defective vehicle.
In a recent case, F. Austin (Leyton) Limited v. East 1960, "causing" was held to be an absolute offence for which it is not necessary to show personal knowledge. At present there are very few prosecutions for "causing or permitting" because it is generally easier for the authorities to proceed for the offence of "using". If "using" were removed by the Amendment, it is likely that prosecution would merely be switched to the offence of "causing or permitting", and here we are in serious difficulties about finding the necessary language that provides for the special case of the small man who is liable to mandatory disqualification on conviction for a third reckonable offence, although he did not know what was going on, in the driving of defective vehicles, without getting rid generally of the offence of "causing or permitting" or "using" a defective vehicle in circumstances where transport managers and others were perfectly acquainted with the facts of what was going on.
We intend to proceed with the search for a definition which will meet the case,


not only on the use of lorries, but also for motor cars.
I mentioned in Committee that we were not satisfied that we should make amending provision simply in part of a Bill dealing with goods vehicles. If we remove part of the doctrine of vicarious responsibility, we should do it right across the board in respect of all vehicles and, therefore, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to continue to attempt to find means of amending the law to remove the inequity which we recognise now exists, and to do it in respect of all vehicles.

12 m.

Sir D. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) has done a great service by raising this matter. It is somewhat ironical that it should be raised at this late hour, and we appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary, who was engaged in a morning sitting, giving us the encouraging and helpful information that the Government are looking to a more general solution of the unfairness of the totting-up system.
Hoping that I shall not be out of order, may I suggest that one very simple and general way of doing it in the Bill, which could be done in another place, is to say that the period in which previous offences have been committed shall be a much shorter one than the three years that it is at present? If it were specified as being 12 months, in a rough and ready but perfectly fair, short and simple way, many of the disadvantages of the present totting up system would be overcome.
I commend that suggestion to the hon. Gentleman. I see entirely the point which he makes about the specific proposal which my hon. Friend has put forward. I do not know whether my hon. Friend accepts the explanation, but I see the hon. Gentleman's point. It would be rather difficult to remove that injustice in this way, leaving the other injustices there still. But I hope that it will not be long before we have the other injustices removed. It would not involve an elaborate and major exercise.
If a short and simple solution of the kind that I have suggested is considered in the time that it takes for a Bill to go from this House to another place, a suitable Amendment could be moved by the Government in another place to solve the problem.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that all hon. Members sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary. As well as being here since ten o'clock this morning, he has had to wrestle with the difficulties of vicarious liability. To those who do not believe that practising members of the Bar work in this House, may I say that we have to do that sort of thing each day.
It is not and never was proposed in the Amendment to try and abolish the idea of totting up as it stands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said, the point which concerned us was that, under paragraph 19 of Part II of the 1962 Act, a person running a firm with a small fleet of lorries could suddenly, as a result of various offences relating to his lorries committed under Section 61(2) of the principal Act, find to his chagrin and amazement that his own driving licence had been withdrawn. It might be that, on three occasions over a period of three years, one of his lorries or possibly a different one on each occasion, had gone on the road committing an offence of some kind under the Construction and Use Regulations. Whilst many breaches of the Regulations can be serious, equally there can be fairly technical breaches.
I find it a little difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's explanation that, if the Amendment went through, the alternative to charging a person with causing the use of a vehicle would be to charge him with either using or permitting it. If one looks at paragraph 19 of Part II of the Road Traffic Act, it refers to offences under Section 64(2) of the principal Act (Contravention of Construction and Use Regulations) committed by using a vehicle on a road or causing or permitting a vehicle to be so used. Should the prosecuting department decide that the charge is to be permitting the use, rather than using or causing the use, by the Amendment the unfortunate owner of a small fleet of lorries would not and his own personal licence in danger of being endorsed and later subject to disqualification.
I accept that there may be great difficulties in the Amendment. I am not sure whether, as drawn, it would merely cover cases of vicarious liability, or whether it could be said that, if a person was charged in the capacity of a driver


with using a vehicle on a road which was in breach of the Construction and Use Regulations, nevertheless, under our Amendment, he would be exempt from having his licence endorsed. Quite clearly, if that were so it might not be desirable or any fairer to that man or to other people. If a person has his own vehicle and is using it and is in breach of the Construction and Use Regulations, it seems reasonable that his licence should be endorsed.
On the basis that the wording of the Amendment may not meet the point that we wish to make, but having made the point both in Committee and on Report, and the Government having accepted that there is a grave injustice which should be remedied at the earliest possible stage, if the hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the Government will continue to wrestle with the problem of vicarious liability and come forward with legislation at the earliest possible moment on this matter, as one of the signatories to the Amendment I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) must ask for that leave.

Mr. Awdry: I beg to move Amenddraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEED INGS FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH GOODS VEHICLES.)

Mr. Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 30, line 3, after '(a)', to insert:
'in a case where the limit of that weight was not exceeded by more than the prescribed percentage'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, would it be convenient to take with that Amendment the next one, No. 33, in line 13, to leave out 'ten' and to insert 'five'?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Awdry: This is a short point, but it is a matter on which the Association of Municipal Corporations feels very strongly. It arises from the fact that subsection (4) of this Clause provides alternative defences in proceedings under Section 64(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, in which a goods vehicle is alleged

to be in excess of the permitted weight limits.
Amendment No.32 relates to the first defence available to the defendant. For this defence the defendant must show that the vehicle was on the way to the nearest available weighbridge for the purpose of being weighed, or, alternatively, was proceeding from the weighbridge after it had been weighed to the nearest place at which it was reasonably practicable to reduce the weight to the relevant limit. On the face of it, it seems a reasonable defence, but the Association feels that this defence might be abused.
The Amendment is drafted in such a way as to enable the Minister to prescribe a limit to the overload above which the defence will no longer be available. I should have thought that 10 per cent. was a reasonable limit, but clearly this is a matter of judgment, and it is for this reason that the Amendment suggests a prescribed percentage which can be altered from time to time by the Minister as she is guided by experience. It is desirable that the law with regard to overloading should be strictly enforced, and it is purely to make the law more effective that I have tabled this small Amendment.
Amendment No.33 deals with the second defence available under this Clause. To avail himself of this defence the defendant must prove three things: first, that the limit was not exceeded at the time of loading; secondly, that since the loading n oone has made any addition to the load; thirdly, that the permitted weight is not exceeded by more than 10 per cent.
The Association feels that on the face of it the 10 per cent. excess load seems excessive, because the only way that increases in weight can take place are either by the vehicle taking on petrol or fuel, or by the effect of some rain or snow on the load itself. I should, therefore, have thought that 5 per cent. would have been sufficient, if not generous.

Mr. Swingler: With regard to Amendment No.32, so far as we are concerned these good defences are to a great extent experimental. They have been drawn up without knowledge of how the plating scheme will work in practice, and how the control of overloading provided for


will work in practice. Therefore, whilst I wish at the moment to resist the Amendment, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that if my right hon. Friend finds that these good defences prove to be unwarrantably abused, the first legislative opportunity will be taken to modify them.
I am sure that the hon. Member will be glad to know that I am very pleased to recommend the acceptance of the Amendment No.33. I think that the Bill was drawn too widely and that his figure of 5 per cent. is a more logical percentage figure and, therefore, I am pleased to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Awdry: We have made good progress and it is a bit late to get Amendments accepted. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his assurance on the first Amendment and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it. I am grateful to him for accepting the second Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: No.33, in page 30, line 13 leave out "ten" and insert "five".—[Mr. Awdry.]

Mr. Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No.34, in page 30, line 16 at end insert:
Provided that the defendant shall not be entitled to avail himself of the foregoing provisions of this subsection unless he has, not less than three clear days before the date of the hearing, sent to the prosecutor a written notice of his intention to do so, together with a brief statement of the facts on which he intends to rely.
This Amendment is also inspired by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I hope that it will be accepted as well. The Amendment also relates to the defence under Clause 23, and the intention is to reduce to a minimum opportunities for abuse. The Amendment requires the defendant to give notice to the prosecution of his intention to rely on either of the two defences and of all the facts he intends to prove. This would avoid the situation in which the prosecution was taken entirely by surprise but make the defence available in all genuine cases. There is a precedent for a proviso on these lines in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. If a person raises a defence of warranty Section 84(2) provides:

A warranty shall only be a defence to proceedings under this Act if—
(a) the defendant has within seven days of the service of the summons sent to the prosecutor a copy of the warranty with a notice stating that he intends to rely on it—
This Amendment is drafted on similar lines, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. John Morris: I am afraid that I cannot yield to the blandishments of the hon. Member on this Amendment. Some of the precedents which have been quoted from the Food and Drugs Act are not directly relevant. The purpose of the provisions in Section 113 and Section 115 of the 1955 Act is to alert the prosecution if a third party is to be involved. If there is any danger of the prosecution being caught in difficulty, then the best remedy is to ask for an adjournment, and this is the practice in summary proceeding of this kind.

Mr. Awdry: At this hour I do not wish to press the matter any further. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26.—(SUPPLEMENTAL.)

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No.35, in page 31, line 25 at end insert:
'contravention', in relation to any requirement, prohibition or provision, includes a failure to comply with the requirement, prohibition or provision, and 'contravenes' shall be construed accordingly.
The purpose of this Amendment is to define the word "contravention".

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No.36, in page 24, line 6, leave out paragraph 1.
This is consequential on new Clause l which was accepted earlier.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No.58, in page 34, line 23 at end insert:
7. In section 195(1) after the word 'thereon' there shall be inserted the words 'or the ordering or disqualification under section 18(3) of the Road Safety Act 1967'.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I am surprised that the right hon. Lady is not to move the Third Reading of her Bill.

Mrs. Castle: There has been some confusion: I did not understand what the Chair wanted me to indicate in connection with the Queen's Consent.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
There is no need at this time of the night to go over the ground covered so exhaustively and efficiently by hon. Members in Committee and in the House. Our discussions have been very harmonious, and the debate this evening even culminated in the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) having one of his Amendments accepted—a symbol of the open-mindedness with which we have listened to each other and our willingness to be convinced or examine arguments. It is a sign that the House has determined that this important Bill shall take its place on the Statute Book and be implemented as effectively as possible. It is an important Bill, and I want to congratulate all those who have contributed to its consideration and improvement.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has moved the Third Reading, because I think that this is an important Bill. I propose to make a speech and not just a few remarks, as the Minister did.
Although the Bill is the first to be called a Road Safety Bill, it deals with only two aspects of road safety—the danger of over-drinking and that of overloaded and badly maintained lorries. We made several suggestions on Second Reading about how the Minister could improve road safety still further by extending the Bill's scope, but she did not, unfortunately, follow our advice—which leaves us with a Bill somewhat less ample than its Title might suggest.
This does not mean that it is a bad Bill, even if its scope is a little disappointing. We have approached the Bill constructively and have tried to improve it. Some of our Amendments have

been accepted and most of them—even those which the right hon. Lady did not accept—have been accepted by hon. Members opposite.
Part I deals with drink. Although this emotional subject gives rise to strong feelings, the proportion of accidents caused by drink is very small. So, however successful the Bill may be, it will make a relatively small impression. It is important to say that, although the Bill deals with drink, it will not end the accident problem. Many people think that it will, that if drink is excluded the accident problem is almost solved—but of course we know that that is not so. However, although the proportion of accidents caused by drink is small, the number affected is considerable, so we agree with the right hon. Lady that it is well worth Parliament's attention and legislation.
We congratulate her on her non-legalistic, commonsense approach to the thorny problem of "in charge" cases. She was right to encourage people who feel that they have had too much to drink to stop driving and pull into the side of the road without having to fear the present ridiculous consequences. We also support the objective tests. We have said this time and again and it is unfortunate that, whenever we have moved Amendments, this has been interpreted as being sympathetic to the drinker. Once and for all, we are wholly opposed to people who drink too much and then drive and we consider that an objective standard to decide when they have drunk too much is absolutely essential.
Having said that, I am afraid that I must now begin to part company with the right hon. Lady, although I hope that we may come together again before the end of my speech. First of all, I would say that we believe she made two major errors in the first part of the Bill. She has insisted upon the police having power to carry out a test without suspicion of an offence having been committed, although she said during the Second Reading that there could be no question of the police setting up traps or "waiting to pounce". She has done absolutely nothing during the passage of the Bill—and has, indeed, resisted Amendments—to turn her words into legislative force. The right hon. Lady knows that what she says here is utterly worthless; it is what is in


the Bill that counts. This gives the police far too much power, and will greatly inconvenience innocent members of the public. She has given no convincing reason why it is necessary for the powers of the police to be so wide that they can test people, without suspicion, and especially when we know that the existence of the "objective" standard will secure, in practice, everything that is wanted and everything that has been lacking until now.
We are very sorry to see that the right hon. Lady is a very hard woman over all this. We would tell her that hardness must not be confused with justice, and the existence of mandatory disqualification for a minimum period of 12 months is the second serious error she has made in the Bill. The essence of justice is that the punishment should be made to fit the crime, but we in Parliament cannot possibly know, in the circumstances of any particular crime, what is the right punishment.
The House may have noticed how curious it is that she is so severe on the individual driver, that there is no sign of that Socialist doctrine of "from each according to his ability"—no discretion allowed to the court, but everyone irrespective of the circumstances forced to suffer at least 12 months disqualification—when she is so different in her attitude when we come to Part 11 of the Bill. There we are dealing, not with people, not with individuals but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed out, with lorries. If they are overloaded, or badly maintained, or in such a condition that they are capable of inflicting tremendous damage—probably much more than the drunken driver—the stern demeanour which characterised the Minister's thinking on Part 1, vanishes. Instead, we find her cooing like a gentle dove with penalties that are utterly ineffective and quite unsuitable to act as effective sanctions against irresponsible lorry owners.
I would hasten to say that this is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of the Geddes Committee, and I am very much afraid that with these inadequate penalties which do nothing towards achieving the only thing worth doing—removing the licence of the offending vehicle—towards getting higher safety standards.

We may well find that the higher standards laid down for safety in the Bill will, in fact, not be observed. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.
In other respects, Part 11 of the Bill is satisfactory in general terms, but that is not surprising since the framework was largely devised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). At least I have now got the right hon. Lady's attention—

Mrs. Castle: Not for long.

Mr. Galbraith: There is to be "plating" in order to prevent overloading, and there are to be annual tests to ensure good maintenance, and special licences to guarantee that drivers are familiar with their vehicles. All this is very satisfactory in a general sort of way, but the trouble is that, since so much depends on the actual details of the regulations, we do not really know precisely what will be involved. I hope that so far as alterations are concerned, this will not give rise to a vast burden of paper work. I hope that operators will not be called upon to do that, and I hope that the Minister will content herself with standards of performance, and not concern herself with the means by which these standards are achieved. If she does, that will not only cause unnecessary work, but will stultify new developments.
So far as annual testing is concerned, I hope that the Minister will make full use of the existing garages that are properly equipped, and, among other things, save public money. We want to do the job of maintaining and checking properly but not to have any unnecessary empire building. That is something which all Ministers, especially Ministers of Transport, must be on their guard against.
In spite of the vicissitudes that have affected the Bill—and there have been plenty—getting it on to the Statute Book will be the easiest part of the right hon. Lady's task as far as Part I is concerned. If Part I is to be a success, there must be co-operation from the public. Here her harshness over mandatory disqualification, coupled with her insistence on the wide, almost random power to test unconnected with suspicion may, I am afraid, alienate public support, for the Bill turns into criminals people who do


not think that they are criminals and a very great deal of publicity will be necessary if the Bill is not to strike down with extreme severity people who simply are not aware that they have broken the law and will have a sense of grievance and of righteous indignation as a result of what has happened today, which will make it hard on her to get the changed outlook from the public that we want.
The extent of this ignorance was brought home to me only the other night when, on the radio, I heard a discussion programme in which the talk soon turned to drink and driving. I shall not bore the House with details but what struck me was that, although Sweden was mentioned, there was no reference, even from an hon. Member who was on the panel, to this Bill or to the great changes in social habits that the Bill will demand.
I think that this ignorance, even amongst reasonably well informed people, talking on a current affairs programme, should be very worrying to the right hon. Lady and it is a measure of the task of education and enlightenment that still confronts her. She has probably made the task more difficult than it need be by not accepting our advice that the right philsophy for change is "gently, gently, catchee monkey". On the other hand, she has insisted on the big stick method. She has put her faith in authority, as her party always does, rather than in people, in seeking to encourage their co-operation and understanding.
I hope that the right hon. Lady does not find that the unnecessarily draconian features of the Bill will antagonise the public and make it harder to achieve the increase in road safety that we all want—because we do all want it and, as I said earlier, we shall come together at the end of the day, for we are all united about the ends, whatever our reservations may be about the means. We on this side join with her in supporting her Motion that the Bill be read the Third time.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I deplore the narrowness with which the Minister has pursued her objectives. To call this a Road Safety Bill and solely to deal with drunken driving and with lorries and to leave such a vast area un-

touched that is so necessary for Government action is a major demerit of this legislation. Nothing can alter the fact that, in dealing with drunken driving of cars, the Bill will perhaps be almost more successful than we expect. But that will deal with only 6 per cent. of the causes of accidents. There was a great opportunity in this Bill to deal with the other 94 per cent. of the causes of accidents. She could have done a great deal about many of them.
What about the rebuilt wrecks which get on the roads? What about the codification of the causes of accidents, which could then have more severe penalties? What about the breaches of road rules and safety regulations which cause accidents?
What about the missed opportunity of doing something about the compulsory wearing of crash helmets, as recommended by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; restrictions on parking near road junctions, a very important matter, recommended by the National Public Safety Committee; or the compulsory installation of tell-tale lights on dashboards?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I am making the point, Mr. Speaker, that we are asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill which has severe demerits and that one of the major causes of accidents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On Third Reading, the hon. Member can talk only about what is in the Bill, not about the demerits which he would like to see remedied in the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, those demerits which are not in the Bill are the defects which worry me, but I will not pursue that matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. They may worry the hon. Member, but he cannot talk about them now if they are not in the Bill. His opportunity for that has gone.

Mr. Mitchell: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill, to which we are asked to give a Third Reading, will bring a dramatic change in people's habits. I do not think it is widely enough realised just how


dramatic it will be. After the Bill becomes law, it will no longer be "one over the eight", but "one over the 80", which is the offence. I hope that the Minister will draw public attention to the major nature of the change which she is bringing about.
The right hon. Lady mentioned tonight that three small whiskies—three nips—would provide the limit at which some people would be liable to commit an offence. That means that anybody who goes to a civic function, a rugger club dinner, a working men's dinner or an N.F.U. meeting and conducts normal social habits will find himself committing this offence. There must be much more widespread knowledge of just how dramatic is the change which the right hon. Lady is bringing about.
A person who goes to a civic dinner at his town hall would probably be offered a couple of cocktails before dinner, probably a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and perhaps a port or a brandy after. If he goes through a perfectly normal meal at a civic function and afterwards drives home, he will in all probability be committing an offence under the terms of the Bill. A great deal more publicity must be given to how big a change the Minister is introducing.
We all know of the assing about which goes on at parties. I have seen somebody pour a whisky into somebody's beer. If that person then drinks his beer without knowing what has been done, he may go out into the road, commit an offence and have his licence taken away for 12 months without being aware that he is committing an offence. If we fix a severe penalty—and suspension of a licence for 12 months is a very severe penalty—it is vital that we ensure that we do not cause injustice.
In deciding whether to support the Bill on Third Reading, I have been anxious to reassure myself that every driver who commits the offence of having a blood reading of more than 80 mg. will be a danger on the road. I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill and I am most desirous of seeing drunken drivers driven off the roads by this legislation, provided that we can be sure that injustice is not being done, possibly to a larger number of people than is generally recognised.
During earlier stages of the Bill, I listened carefully to what was said about this problem. The Minister had this point in mind, I think, on Second Reading of the original Bill, when she said that
it is better, when we are making a great step forward in our legislation and introducing an entirely new type of offence, to start with a level which rules out any possible injustice.
That is important. The right hon. Lady also said:
At this level of 80 mg., these two medical authorities agree that the ability to drive of the great majority of drivers would be impaired, even if the drivers were not aware of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1966; Vol.724, c.658, 659.]
I ask myself—what is the great majority of drivers? What about the minority of drivers who apparently on that phraseology would not be impaired?
I find it interesting that the Minister used these words on the Second Reading of the original Bill on 10th February, 1966, and when we come to the Second Reading of the current Bill she used words remarkably similar, and therefore I should think, had probably taken care and advice in her phraseology.
She then said
…with a concentration of alcohol in the blood beyond this level, the ability to drive of the great majority of people is impaired."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1966; Vol.735, c.982.]
Again I ask—what is the minority? If the great majority are impaired, what about the minority who are not impaired? There are, after all, 12·3 million cars on the roads so that if we were talking of 95 per cent. as the great majority and 5 per cent. as the minority, we should be talking of 600,000 people who would be at risk as the minority. If we were talking of 99 per cent. as the great majority and only 1 per cent. as the minority, no less than 120,000 of our citizens are at risk under this Bill if the Minister has not been fair and accurate in setting her figure at 80 milligrammes.
We had some discussion on this during the Committee stage, and earlier this evening there was a vote during the Report stage after the Minister had announced that three nips might well be the limit for somebody to risk being over the 80 when they drive. I went round one or two of the bars in this House afterwards with a glass of lemon squash and


I observed a good many of those who had voted—some dozens of them—who had streamed out of the Chamber after the vote and were having the usual sort of light refreshment. I wondered how many of them were thinking that if they were to go out of this place and drive home they would be committing an offence.
During the Committee stage I made the point that it was a very serious matter if one was suggesting that when somebody was consuming the normal amount at a civic banquet it might be impairing their judgment. I asked the Committee to consider an hon. Member speaking at a meeting in his constituency, or the Prime Minister speaking at the Lord Mayor's Banquet and reviewing the nation's affairs, and asked if it were suggested that he was impaired because he had taken the same amount as anyone else.
It was very revealing that the Parliamentary Secretary rose to his feet in the Committee and said that I
must realise that this Bill has nothing to do with being drunk in charge or with one's ability being impaired. We are creating a new offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 24th November, 1966; c.81.]
This gives me some worry—

Mr. John Morris: I did point out to the hon. Gentleman subsequently, as he knows full well because it is recorded in HANSARD, that what I was referring to there in my short intervention was that we were now creating a new substantive offence which was not the same as the existing offences dealing with impairment. The hon. Gentleman accepted my explanation, and I wonder why he is wasting the time of the House in pursuing it now.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention because I have looked up very carefully what he said. I will quote what he said at column 32 of the sitting on 22nd November, 1966
Having isolated all the wheat from the chaff, that is the crux of his argument.
That is, my argument, and the hon. Gentleman continued
It is true that some drivers may not be significantly impaired—I use the word 'significantly' advisedly—at 80, but the B.M.A. in recommending that limit said that there would

be very few."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 22nd November, 1966, c.32.]
Again, we have not had a definition of "very few". I am profoundly worried by this. If "very few" are only 1 per cent., some 120,000 of our citizens may be at risk of being convicted falsely. In considering whether I should or should not vote for the Third Reading of the Bill I have in mind a very startling change in the phraseology of the Minister. In Committee she said that
there is no sound basis on which the driver"—
any driver: I draw attention to this sudden change from "very few" to "any" driver—
can claim to be an exception to the general rules that driving ability is significantly impaired at levels above 80 milligrammes…."[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 8th December, 1966; c.266.]
On Report, she said, "It is just not true that they will not be impaired."
Well, I am puzzled, I am concerned, and I am worried. We have this risk that a large number of our citizens might be quite falsely put in a position of losing their licences for 12 months. I am going to accept the assurance which the Minister has given, the changed assurance which she has given, but certainly I think this House should—and I for my constituency will—recognise, in passing this law, that if any injustice is done because the Minister has played with words, it will be an injustice which must be on her conscience. I accept her guidance, and it is on that that I will support the Bill.

12.41 a.m.

Sir H. Harrison: I think that when we had the Second Reading of the Bill most of us hoped that by this time it would be on the Statute Book. Nevertheless, we have had a lot of useful discussion of it, both in Committee and here today, and we have got, particularly from Ministers, speeches it is well worth while having on the record.
I was particularly grateful to the Minister when she acknowledged a remark of mine in Committee—how important it is to sell the Bill to the public, and that that will require a vast amount of publicity by her and her Department. I was glad to hear her again today say how important is public education in the Bill.


It is important that the ordinary drivers—I do not mean the extreme ones who ordinarily get into trouble, but the normal, law-abiding ones, who are the vast majority of our drivers— should understand exactly where they are under the Bill. It is not a Bill to punish drunken drivers, though we may by the Bill catch a few of them, but it is a Bill to punish those whose ability to drive is impaired by consumption of alcohol. That is not yet fully realised by the public generally. I hope we shall not be like the Member of Parliament referred to just now, but that we all—I certainly give the Minister my word that I shall—will do our utmost as Members of Parliament to try to bring the main points of the Bill before the public. Because what we want is not to catch people out, but to stop them drinking when driving, so that less loss of lives and less loss of limbs will result.
During our debates on Report the Minister made what I thought was a slight slip. She was being pressed by some of her hon. Friends at the time, and it was about that very important part of the Bill by which, when a man has been involved in an accident, the police can take a breathalyser test. Somebody said, "Oh, it is too late then." The Minister said, "Yes." I suggest that she did not really mean it was too late, because I believe that we shall be able to catch quite a lot of people who otherwise would only be caught for careless driving, or causing an accident; for now, if they are impaired by having 80 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood, they will have their licences suspended. I would regard this as a very important part of the Bill, and I believe it will show that alcohol is responsible for rather more than the 6 per cent. of accidents of which we have been told.
I was also glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he hopes to publish a guide for the use of lorry owners and also the associations. Here again, we are after a smaller section and not a large number, and it is important that we should try to get the willing co-operation of lorry owners and drivers and that those who offend—some of them offend very badly—should be prosecuted.
From inquiries that I have made, I think that, through lack of numbers or for certain other reasons, the police have

perhaps not been prosecuting the people who have been disregarding even the present law over lorries until one has been involved in an accident. We want the co-operation of the police forces. Now that they are being amalgamated, possibly it will be rather easier for them. We want the police able to ensure that the law that we enact here is obeyed. I wish the Bill great success in preventing accidents when it becomes an Act.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Deedes: I warmly support the intentions of the Bill. I want to see it succeed. I only have slight doubts whether it will succeed quite as well as we all hope. One can support all its intentions while still having reservations about some of the methods that we shall employ.
I must say where by doubts principally arise. This is a unique Bill. We are relying largely upon a new and hitherto unproved—in this country at least—instrument combined with automatic penalties to achieve what we want. That makes a singular Act of Parliament. I do not recall anything in the past on quite those lines. That is what gives me certain reservations about where the human element—I am thinking of enforcement—will come in.
I think that this represents an earnest of the right hon. Lady's intentions. She wants to make people realise that it is a serious offence—which it is—and bring home to them that if they commit the offence they will be automatically punished. I hope she is right.
Incidentally, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the instrument in question will be ready. Are we sure that the instrument that we are going to use—the breathalyser—is proved and is available for almost immediate use, or are there going to be any delays between the enactment of the Bill and the implementation of it?

Mr. Taverne: Perhaps I might deal with that point straight away. The only question is how fast these particular breath-test devices can be produced. They are already being tested, and within a matter of weeks the testing will be complete. Orders will then be placed with manufacturers the moment the Bill becomes law. But we must, of course, have a sufficient quantity of them. We shall


have to have a very large quantity of them before this part of the Bill can become operative.

Mr. Deedes: I shall mention in a moment why I think that the timing is very important.
There seem to be two main areas of argument over the Bill. One is the random check and the other is the automatic disqualification. On the random check, I have sympathy with the confusion in mind which some hon. Members opposite experienced earlier in the course of our debates this evening. The right hon. Lady, if I may coin a phrase, has not walked a straight line over this. Her gait has been unsteady in respect of the random check, no doubt with the best of intentions. If we look back at the White Paper, we see that we have moved unsteadily from one line to the next.
Now we have a compromise. The only point that I want to make about that is that it is leaving a very considerable degree of discretion and responsibility on the police. I hope that the House will not part with the Bill without realising the effect of the random check, or semi-random check, that we are imposing on our policemen. One has to face the fact that they will encounter difficulties that we in this House have not foreseen.
I will mention one which struck me this afternoon when we were discussing Clause 2(1,a). An anonymous, or even a signed, letter might be sent to the police informing them that x or y is notoriously leaving the same place every night, under the influence, and driving a car and should be watched. Are the police to take cognisance of anonymous communications? Does such information give them reason to believe that x or y may be driving whilst his ability is impaired? What is to be their reaction? I do not ask for an answer. It is an example of the way in which the police will have—I will not say great difficulties, but a very responsible discretion to exercise. We must not suppose that any of this will improve relations between the public and the police. This will be the price, and it is a price that must be paid. Do not let anybody go away believing that this will promote co-operation between the public and the police, because it will not. We should be fooling ourselves if we were to pretend otherwise.
Secondly, I am much more concerned about the disqualification proposals. I am concerned about their effect. Unlike most of those who spoke earlier in support of the Amendment, I do not want a soft option. I do not put the housemaid's case that there will only be a little one and in those cases there should be no disqualification. I do not accept that proposition. I accept most of the Minister's arguments on this.
What I am concerned about is how effective will disqualification be. My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) quoted earlier the evidence which I quoted in Committee provided by Dr. Willett on the effectiveness or otherwise of disqualification over a certain period. What is the effective period of disqualification? Has any research been conducted into this problem in the light of the Bill? This is a scientific subject. This, I understand, is a science-based Government. It is not sufficient for the right hon. Lady to quote to us the results of public opinion polls. They are absolutely irrelevant in terms of the operation of the Bill when enacted. We want to know far more about any scientific appraisal there may have been of the effectiveness of disqualification. Is Dr. Willett right in saying that over 5½ months many people are tempted to break the disqualification and go on to the roads with their motor cars?
If that is so—I do not want to exaggerate it—we are liable to replace a large number of people whose driving is impaired by drink with a large number of people who are driving whilst disqualified. That is not part of a Road Safety Bill. We may gain one thing, but we lose the other. Therefore, I reproach the right hon. Lady for what I think has been a superficial attitude towards the purpose and effect of disqualification. I do not think it can be glossed over.
My last point is on the education campaign. This was why I raised the point about the date on which this apparatus will be available. It is terribly important that the public should know when the Act is coming into force and when the breathalysers will be ready. We must be told this date as soon as possible. People should be informed of what is at stake.
I give the right hon. Lady the benefit of the doubt. I think that she has hesitated to say very much about the Bill


because it has not yet received the assent of Parliament. This is a perfectly proper approach to make about a piece of legislation. She must not spend money advertising its effect before Parliament has given its assent to the Bill. I take it that that is the reason. However, I hope that somewhere in the background plans have been laid and that a campaign of education to deal with the points which have been raised is ready to be launched. It is not good enough to hang a few to encourage the others. We must not have a flush of people in the courts in the first few weeks just to discourage others from drinking. That is not the way to implement the law. Let us have a proper education campaign. Let it be prepared now. If we get that, there will still be some of the defects I have mentioned but at least the public will understand what it is about.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Bessell: At this hour of the night it would be wrong for me to make a speech, and I have no intention of doing so. Hon. Gentleman may say "Hear, hear", but I hope that that does not imply any lack of appreciation of the importance of the Measure, because it has a long history and the main reason why I do not propose to speak at length is that we have had other opportunities of making the important points earlier in our debate yesterday and this morning or on other occasions.
Some of the doubts I expressed on Second Reading of the original Bill on 10th February last year have been put right by the Amendments which have been accepted by the Government or have been inserted by the Minister of Transport. I wish the Bill well, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, but we hope that too much will not be expected from it. It is true that drink is a very serious cause of accidents, perhaps more serious than we know at present, and the Bill will help to show just how much it is a contributory cause of many accidents. But there are other causes, and I look forward to future legislation to deal with some of those more serious aspects of accidents. I sense, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to call me to order, and I shall in any case leave that point immediately.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady and the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries on

all the work they have done in bringing before Parliament a Bill which I believe is significant and important. It is a first step towards greater road safety, which I hope will be followed by other similar legislation. We on this bench wish it well and will do anything in our power to help it in its passage.

12.58 a.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: I support the Bill, and I shall not get out of order by saying that right from the beginning I held that we should enlarge it. I am a great admirer of the Road Research Laboratory, and I do not feel that the Minister has done enough research on the causes of road accidents. From now on we must build up more facts and statistics about their causes. I feel that motorists are slammed for everything and yet pedestrians and cyclists are often to blame. No mention has been made of death due to natural causes while driving, or even suicides which have taken place.

Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but what he is saying is right outside the Third Reading debate.

Sir Clive Bossom: I shall not continue with that, Mr. Speaker. I think that we are nailing the motorists too much and that the pedestrians and cyclists have not come out of the Bill very well. I hope that the Minister will keep that problem under review, because at present they are not blamed for things while the motorist is blamed for everything.

12.59 a.m.

Sir R. Russell: What are the Minister's intentions about bringing the Bill into operation? Clause 29 talks about making different appointed days. I hope that Clause 22 will be brought into operation as soon as possible. That Clause increases the maximum fine from £50 to £200 for offences concerning dangerous goods vehicles and breaches of construction and use requirements. That is very important. I also hope that the further legislation which the Parliamentary Secretary forecast will be introduced as soon as possible, and that the attention of the courts will be drawn to the increased penalties.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I want first to thank the Minister of Transport not only for selecting for the Title of her Bill


the Title of three Private Member's Bills of mine in my efforts over the years to bring in road safety legislation of this sort, but also for including almost word for word the Amendment in Part I of her Bill which I tabled to the 1956 Bill. That was 11 years ago, and it is gratifying to me to see it now passing its Third Reading despite that length of time.
We have always recognised that a law of this sort will cause very great change in social habits, but it will be a worthwhile change because it will save life and limb on the road. It is not going to be easy for the police. We are imposing an extremely heavy task on the police force in Part I of the Bill. We are creating a new offence which is only partially recognised at present as even a criminal offence, let alone a moral offence. It is this that we now have to impress on the public.
One wonders whether the Government have realised the importance of this Bill. When the Leader of the House thought he was going to get the remaining stages of the Bill through after 10 o'clock at night, he did not show much appreciation of the importance of the Bill. We have now, in a businesslike way, spent nine hours examining the Bill and seeing that it is in proper form.
I hope that the Government, in bringing the Bill into operation, will not be as casual as that, particularly in impressing the contents of the Bill on the public. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary who will reply to the debate can tell the House whether it is intended to engage any experts in public relations to put over the contents of the Bill to the public. We do not want pamphlets like the Inland Revenue send out on Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax, but something to touch the public and make them realise the great change in social habits that is brought about.
The feature of Part II of the Bill is that so much depends on Regulations. The Minister has taken power to do a great deal by regulation: tests of the fitness of heavy vehicles; checking weights, checking brakes, and regulations about dangerous goods. I hope we may see regulations coming forward very rapidly under these powers.
The House may know that, with regard to road safety, I have over many years tried to stand in the shoes of the pedestrian, rather than to sit in the seat of the driver. I have tried to look at road safety from the pedestrian's point of view. It is because the pedestrian has suffered so tragically from heavy goods vehicle accidents that I have concentrated on Amendments to Part II of the Bill.
Some of the deaths have been caused by lorries mounting pavements, running down hills and mounting pavements, overturning on to pavements, and spilling loads on to pedestrians. Pedestrians have suffered heavily from these accidents and I beg the Government to move rapidly in producing safety regulations under Part II. By that means, Parts I and II will be a special contribution to road safety and will prevent loss of life and injury on the road in future.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle: Now that we have come practically to the end of our consideration of this Bill in this House, it is pleasant to see that some hon. Members on both sides have lasted the pace. While I am not criticising the Minister for not being here at this time, because I know she has been here throughout practically the whole of the Report stage, I hope she will have the opportunity to read some of the things said on Third Reading, especially the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
The Bill was hailed by the Government at the outset as one of major importance, and it is accepted that it will cause great social changes in the country. In that connection, I want to support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) said when he urged upon the Parliamentary Secretary the real need for full publicity for the Bill. Many people in the country have not yet realised the effect which it will have.
It is all very well talking in terms of 80 milligrammes, but the right hon. Lady has reminded us today how little that may be. It will affect many people. It is not just a question of the cocktail party, which was referred to from time to time in Committee, but people attending an ordinary dinner party, a civic function or merely going to a public


house on an evening or at midday on a weekend. We have a duty to point out to people that the limit which we have set can be reached easily in certain circumstances.
The most important aspect of the Bill and the most important gain that it will bring, which is the reason why I have always supported the quantitative test, is that it will ensure in future that bad cases which in the past have been acquitted will duly and rightly be convicted. However, if we are not careful, we may drag into the net some people who unwittingly find themselves committing offences.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made a point about the date of coming into force of the Act. If we are still in the process of testing the machine on which the whole Bill is based, even if we are coming towards the end of the testing period, it then has to be put out to tender and manufacture, and it will be several months before the Bill can become operative. I wonder if it is not slightly further away than the Government are anxious to tell us at the present time.
I wish to limit my remarks on the Bill to the two points which have given rise to the greatest controversy. They are the penalties, and the testing of the screening device. As regards the penalties, I can only repeat my regret that the Minister has not at any stage given way on the matter of compulsory disqualification for a minimum period of 12 months. During the Second Reading debate, I said that I believed that, if the Minister would accept a change on this, she would see that the Bill achieved its twin objects of creating the proposed offence without, at the same time, creating injustice or hardship. By refusing to give way on the matter of discretion, unwittingly she will find that she is creating cases of hardship which could have been avoided if the Amendments which we proposed had been accepted.
It was apparent from the debate which we had earlier that confusion ranged on the benches opposite as to exactly what the present power is as regards testing. The right hon. Lady said that the purpose of her speech was to undeceive members of the public if she had deceived them. However, much of the confusion and deception of the public which

has occurred has come from the mouth of the Minister herself. It is she who, on several occasions, has apparently given interpretations of the powers of the police which appear to have no relationship to the powers as stated in the Bill. Perhaps I might quote one example. During the Second Reading debate the right hon. Lady said—and these words have been quoted before—
I stress that we are not giving the police power to stop motorists solely in order to see whether they merit a breath test. There can, therefore, be no question of the police setting up traps just round the corner from a public house and waiting to pounce."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1966; Vol.735, c.987.]
It seems to me that that leaves two comments to be made: First, why should it be stressed that the police should not have the power to stop motorists solely in order to see whether they merit a breath test? If the police believe that people are committing an offence under this Bill, surely they should have the power to stop them to see whether they merit a breath test, and quite clearly they have that power under the words that are used.
When the Minister says that there can be no question of setting up traps just round the corner from a public house and waiting to pounce, that may be her wish, but it is clear from the words used by the right hon. Lady that she has specifically permitted the police to do that, because all that they have to say is that they have reason to believe that a person has alcohol in his system, and it seems to me inevitable that any police officer could stop anybody coming off any public house car park at any time and say, with perfect justification, that he had reason to believe that the person had been drinking.
The failure, with respect, is the failure of the Minister in blowing hot and cold at different times on the amount of randomness which she was leaving in her powers under the Bill. During the Second Reading debate the right hon. Lady was anxious to pretend that there were no random powers left. During her speech in January, and again today, she was anxious to show that the powers were as random as they had been in the previous Bill.
That leads me to my final comment, which is that the wideness—I believe the


over-wideness—of the powers left to the police to carry out breath tests shows how right were the words of my right hon. Friend when he referred to the discretion and the responsibility which are to be landed on the police in carrying out this Bill. I believe that the success or failure of the Bill—and certainly we on this side of the House wish it to succeed—will to a large extent depend on the way in which the police carry out their powers under this Measure. It will depend on the sense of responsibility which they show in implementing the wide powers which they are given to ensure that they receive public co-operation, rather than lead to a lowering of the standard of support between the public and the police, since, if the Bill is to succeed, it is undoubted that it should do so based on the support of the public for it.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. John Morris: May I, too, thank everyone who has taken part in our proceedings both here and upstairs. There has been a general acceptance of the basis of the Bill, and if we have had difficulties on the way they have been with regard to parts of the Bill. We all wish to ensure that the provisions which we are enacting tonight will play a great part in ensuring that there is a social

change in many of our habits with regard to drinking and driving.
I want, briefly, to answer two points. First, we want to make certain that there will be a proper education campaign to ensure that there is an effective public awareness of this great change. This is of great importance, and we are considering it.
Secondly, with regard to the operation of the Bill, I think that the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) was criticising us in that we were not far enough advanced in our testing. We had to wait while the House was making up its mind about the 80 figure. Had we gone far in the way of anticipating the will of the House, we might have been open to criticism in that we had taken a course in advance of Parliament expressing its will. This is always a difficulty.
We hope that Part I of the Bill will he in operation as soon as there are sufficient devices available which come within the tests which have taken place. We hope that this will be in a matter of months and we hope that Part II will come into effect in the course of 1968.
With those brief words I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. David Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we get to the Third Reading may I ask you whether, in view of certain circumstances that I will put to you, it would be better if we adjourned consideration for a morning sitting or a later sitting?

Mr. Speaker: The consideration of the Bill is over. There have been no Amendments submitted and the question is "That the Bill be now read the Third time".

Mr. Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the Government have requested that we should adjourn the sitting of the House? This Bill was considered in the Second Reading Committee and it has not been considered on the Floor of the House.
Under the new Parliamentary reforms we thought that this was to prevent these things being dealt with in a perfunctory manner and we have had an assurance from the Leader of the House, whom I cannot see here, that we would have the proceedings of the House accelerated by having morning sittings and earlier Adjournments so that we could deliberate these matters more seriously in the light of day. As the Bill contains retrospective legislation—the powers expired 11 months ago—and raises a constitutional point of some seriousness, may I ask whether the Leader of the House should be asked if he would ask for an adjournment?
I appreciate that the Minister is exhausted after a long day and this adds weight to the need for us to consider this when we have had our resources strengthened by a little rest.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I correct an inaccuracy on the part of the hon. Member who, perhaps through exhaustion, seems to have overlooked the fact that the retrospective element which originally

appeared in the Bill was, as a concession to the Opposition, deleted in the course of the Committee stage? That is perhaps the reason that no Amendments appeared on Report, and I think that we can proceed.

Mr. Speaker: We are getting into political argument rather than order. So far as the Chair is concerned the Bill was before the House for consideration. There were no Amendments for consideration and the Question before the House is "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

1.18 a.m.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill was given full consideration by the Second Reading Committee and during the Committee stage where substantial concessions were made after Opposition representations that the retrospective element should be deleted.
It is a simple and straightforward Bill to give effect to Government policy to give local authorities every encouragement to deal with traffic congestion. It includes provisions to enable local authorities to provide off-street parking in mixed developments. I need say no more, because hon. Members who are interested devoted careful attention to the Bill in Committee.
However, I should like to take the opportunity of saying, as I have given notice to certain hon. Members that the Government would make a further statement in response to certain points raised, that my right hon. Friend the Minister has given her support to the proposal being made by the Greater London Council to introduce additional provisions in its Greater London Council General Powers (No.2) Bill to promote pre-payment street parking in its area. This will be the quickest way of enabling this procedure to be introduced where it is most needed.
This matter of residents' parking, especially in congested areas of London, concerned several hon. Members in previous stages of the Bill and I am sure that they will be glad to know that action is being taken in another respect to meet residents' problems over parking. The other matters have been dealt with very fully.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Webster: I come back, Mr. Speaker, to some of the points which I raised when I asked you whether you had had a request for the Adjournment of the House. Under this new procedure, there has been a change of affairs, by which the Second Reading of this Bill was considered in Committee. It has been quite a saga, which started on 26th October, when, as we know, the wrong Parliamentary Secretary appeared. We do not have—

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me. We are on the Third Reading of the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman can discuss now only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Webster: Would it then be in order for me to move, "That this House do now adjourn," so that we can consider this matter more thoroughly in the day time?

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman was once again starting to make aspersions on my personal behaviour—for which I have previously apologised during proceedings on the Bill—may I be allowed to know, if this sort of conduct from the hon. Gentleman is to proceed any further, whether I shall have facilities for making a further explanation?

Mr. Speaker: The fact that one hon. Gentleman is out of order does not justify another hon. Gentleman in doing the same. I am trying to keep the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) in order at the moment. We are on the Third Reading, and I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's Motion.

Mr. Webster: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Of course, if I have made any aspersion on the Parliamentary Secretary, I immediately withdraw it. I have said a number of times that I acquit him of any discourtesy to the House as it was represented in the Second Reading Committee on the Bill. I have not the slightest objection to his behaviour or to that of the other Parliamentary Secretary. Both were so ardent in their duty that, the second time we came to the debate, both were there. One was in the Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the Third Reading of the Bill, it is not out of order to speak about the Bill itself. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Bill.

Mr. Webster: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was coming to the Bill, and come to the Bill on a number of occasions, as did both the Parliamentary Secretaries. I would simply deplore the fact that the Leader of the House, having said that we would get through our business with greater expedition—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Webster: You, Mr. Speaker, are keeping order, not hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Leader of the House has said that we would get through our business with greater expedition under the new procedures and with the morning sittings, and that we would get away earlier—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot, on Third Reading, debate morning sittings and the time that the House rises. May I remind the hon. Gentleman? The Question is, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Webster: I thank you again, Mr. Speaker, and will, of course, reduce that part of my speech. The difficulty is that it is impossible for all Members of the House to attend a Second Reading Committee, and we know—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member cannot come to the Bill, I must ask him to resume his seat. The Question is the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Webster: I apologise again, Mr. Speaker.
This is the first time that, after a White Paper which dealt with the problem of parking at great length, we have come to the issue of parking facilities being provided by a local authority. Our great difficulty—I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for his quick recognition of the problem which we faced—was that the powers under the original Act, the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, which came into force on 20th March, 1961, were for five years only. They had expired by some considerable length of time when the Bill came to the Second Reading Committee


of this House and, because of the ineptitude of the Government, they are still in a state of suspense.
When I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about whether any compulsory powers had been taken under the provisions of an expiring Statute—which had, in fact, expired nearly 11 months ago—and asked if any compulsory acquisitions had been made in the interests of off-street parking after 20th March, I found the hon. Gentleman very conscientious in his examination of the point. It is a very serious point, because if he had reported that these powers had been used extra-statutorily, there would have been a number of extremely serious problems. The House would have required that compensation should be paid to people against whom compulsory acquisition had been forced in order that off-street parking should be provided.
Secondly, we should also have had to pass a Bill of indemnity in order to assist any local authority which had taken these powers without the statutory right or obligation so to do. This is a highly difficult and complex problem. We on this side of the House pressed it during the Second Reading, and the moment that the Parliamentary Secretary saw the point, he said that he would make inquiries. We all know that there is a vast number of local authorities given power under an expiring Statute and, in this case, that power had lapsed. It was necessary, therefore, to communicate with all the local authorities concerned, in order to ask them if they had used this power.
At the time of the Committee stage, the Parliamentary Secretary reported on the issue, and said that he would accept an Amendment from us about the retrospective element being taken out. He also said that, to the best of his knowledge at that time, no local authority had proceeded ultra vires, without legal right in order compulsorily to acquire property. I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General is here to assist us in what is a complex matter. We are always grateful to have his agile mind applied to such an intricate subject, and I was about to say that we should have the right to give a Bill of indemnity to local authorities who acted innocently because, like many hon. Members of this House, they did

not know that the powers had lapsed, and also to give compensation to those proprietors taken out of their right to protect their own properties.

Mr. Swingler: I have listened with the utmost tolerance to the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that on the Third Reading one is permitted only to discuss what is actually in a Bill. The hon. Member keeps referring to something which was deleted during the Committee stage. It was then that we conceded that the retrospective element of the Bill should be removed and, therefore, the original proposal of the Government to make these powers retrospective, is no longer in the Bill.
Is it, therefore, Mr. Speaker, in order for the hon. Gentleman to keep discussing matters which arise only from the retrospective provisions that were in the Bill at the time of the Second Reading, but which are now no longer in it?

Mr. Speaker: I did not understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) to be discussing the retrospective element which was taken out. I understood him to be asking what is the effect of the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will answer me and give the same assurance that he gave in Committee. He seems rather sensitive on this point, so I shall press him for his assurance that no local authorities have proceeded in this way and no people have suffered. Let him give that assurance so that the House can definitely know it and have it on the record. We need no ombudsman in this House but hon. Members standing up for their constituents, and we ask him for that assurance.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I explained the position at considerable length twice upstairs. [Interruption.] I assume that hon. Members read the proceedings on the Bill. We discussed at considerable length on Second Reading and in Committee whether this retrospective element was eliminated, and I gave the assurance that, having investigated the whole situation, we could find no case in which a local authority had incurred expenditure and it was, therefore, on that basis that the


retrospective element was eliminated. That is all on the record and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman should have raised the matter again.

Mr. Webster: The hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, protests a little too much. I wonder why there is this reluctance to give the same assurance today. It would have been quicker to have given it and put the position to the House. These powers have expired and it is the duty of Parliament to make sure that powers are not used after their expiry. I am astonished by this sensitivity of the hon. Gentleman when he was so reasonable on Second Reading and in Committee.
I am trying to tread like Agag and keep in order in considering the main purpose of why there was the 5-year lapsing provision. This was done in the time of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) as Minister of Transport. It was decided not to have direct trading by local authorities from off-street car parks. I understand that the Labour Party when in office wishes to have trading from local authority controlled car parks, however, and I want to know how much this will cost on the rate burden and on the Exchequer grant.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to walk as delicately as Agag but not quite delicately enough at the moment.

Mr. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a problem of the financial aspect of this—how much the ratepayer's money is to be used to compete against himself. We debated this at great length on the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said clearly that the reason for the lapsing of these powers five years after the Act went on the Statute Book was in order to prevent trading. I appreciate that the opposite opinion is now in power, but I want to know what will be the cost of this change of policy. It is our duty to find out the cost. We know that, in Greater London, there is the greater prospect of both direct labour contracts and the ratepayer's money being used against himself and we here have a great problem through the equalisation grant and other measures to help local authorities when the rate bur

den is taken from them and put on to the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are interesting points but they are not connected with the Bill.

Mr. Webster: I thank you again, Mr. Speaker, but this surely is a point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said was the purpose of including the expiry part of Section 20 of the 1960 Act. That has now been revoked. There is no longer a five-year term on the powers which the House in its wisdom is granting tonight to the Government.
The reason for that elimination of the five-year term, as referred to on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, is expressly that there should be direct trading by the local authorities concerned. If Parliament is granting these powers to local authorities, it has the right to ask how much of the taxpayer's money and how much of the ratepayer's money will be used to build up competition against himself. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is well equipped to give the answer to these questions. If not, we will have to seek the answer in the way best known to ourselves.

1.36 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby): It is absolutely disgraceful that the Bill should come before the House at 1.15 in the morning. It has not been before the House before. It has been to a Second Reading Committee. I have tried to understand it from the Committee proceedings and from the Bill itself. It is an abominable abuse of the Second Reading procedure to bring it before us at this time of night.
The Bill asks us to ratify payment to reimburse money paid out without authority. Clause 1(2) states that
There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any increase attributable to this section in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.
In this short debate, at this time of night, we are asked to authorise the payment of money without being told the amount or the justification for the Bill. What was the increase? What is the money that Parliament is asked to provide—the
increase attributable to this section"?


We have not been told what the increase is, to what it is attributable, on what it was spent or who spent it. None of these things has been told to us tonight. Neither can we have a satisfactory debate on a Bill of this importance at this time of night.
The Parliamentary Secretary has protested several times that the Bill is not retrospective. What is Clause 1(2) if it is not retrospective? We are told in subsection (1) that certain provisions of a previous Statute expired on 19th March, 1966. We are then told to delete that provision of the previous Statute so that that Statute now goes on indefinitely. Therefore, for the period between March, 1966, and when the Bill gets Royal Assent, somebody has been spending money without authority.

Mr. Swingler: Mr. Swinglerindicated dissent.

Mr. Page: Indeed, what is the purpose of subsection (2), which asks us to authorise the payment of money against that increase attributable to the extension of the period of the previous Statute? That must surely mean the money spent between March, 1966, and the present date. If it does not, what is the purpose of the Bill? If it is not retrospective to authorise payment over that period, to indemnify those who have paid during that period, what is the purpose of the Bill?
Has there been any increase to which this money is payable? From the protest of the Parliamentary Secretary when interrupting from time to time my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), one gathered that nothing had been spent, that nothing had been done during that period and that the Bill was of no purpose and was not retrospective. What, then, is the purpose of bringing the Bill before the House at this time of night? We have had no justification for it.
This is the first time that the Bill has been before the House. [Interruption.] I have tried to read it. Does the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) know what is in the Bill? Perhaps he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and endeavour to tell the House about it. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not told the House—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot proceed at any time of the day by interruption after interruption.

Mr. Page: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, but it does seem to me from the wording of this short Bill that we are being asked to pass retrospective legislation. We are asked to say that a Statute which expired in March last shall not be treated as coming into operation with the passing of this Bill, but as having run for the period between March last and the present time.
The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but what is the meaning of the deletion of the words in the previous Statute
within the period of five years beginning with the coming into force of this section"?
If these words are deleted the Act runs straight on past March, 1966, and now we are legislating to whitewash local authorities who, I presume, have been collecting money from parking quite illegally and paying it out quite illegally. It may be that the House is quite prepared to give them indemnity, but for heaven's sake let us have it explained to us. Let us be told the amount of money, who has been collecting it, and who it has been collected from, and why we are asked to do this.
The Bill of 1960 set a period of time of five years, and at that time the House obviously thought it was the right period of time. It is now to be extended, but we have not been given any justification for it. Have not the local authorities had time to get on with the job under the 1960 Act, to put forward proposals to the Minister, and to have their proposals approved? Are there many local authorities waiting to put forward their proposals?
If the House were told that we might be prepared to pass the Bill on Third Reading, but we are not told. This is the first time the Bill has come before the House, and the Leader of the House should be ashamed of abusing his powers by putting the Bill before us in this way and at twenty minutes to two in the morning.

Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if you would accept a Motion, "That the debate be now adjourned", because there is a special circumstance so far as this


Bill is concerned in the sense that the Bill was sent to the Second Reading Committee?
This is a method of dealing with Bills of this sort which both sides of the House have agreed upon in order to speed up business, and which is appropriate for certain types of measure. But if this Measure does require publicity throughout the country, because there may be local authorities which have been adversely affected during the lapse of time, it is a very bad abuse of the House if a Bill of this sort is bought on for Third Reading at this time of night.
If it is to be the practice of the Government to bring on at this time of night Bills referred to the Second Reading Committee, we on this side of the House will have to consider carefully our whole attitude to this procedure. I would submit that it is in the interests of both sides of the House that the Government should accept that this is not an appropriate time to debate this particular Bill, and that the debate should now be adjourned and we should pass on to other business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept the Motion. I am in complete sympathy at times with points of view put by both sides of the House, but these matters are not for me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MISREPRESENTATION BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3.—(AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN PRO VISIONS EXCLUTIDING LIABILITY FOR MISREPRESENTATION.)

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 25 and insert
'if it is contained in an agreement where the consideration for the agreement is under £20,000 in money or money's worth'.
The effect of Clause 3 is to deprive of effect exemption clauses which would protect someone against innocent misrepresentations which he had made. I must say that I regret the fact that we are moving this Amendment at 1.45 a.m. I notice that the Solicitor-General also regrets our moving it. Knowing his invariable courtesy I can interpret that, not as meaning that he regrets that he is sitting listening to me—

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): No, no.

Mr. Bell: —which I would never suspect, at least not for a while, but as meaning that he, too, realises quite well that indeed the provisions of the Bill, and in particular the provisions of Clause 3, are not minor matters but are matters of very considerable importance which will have a great practical effect, as I hope to show in a moment, for a great many people. This Bill is also one which went to a Second Reading Committee, where we had very profitable discussion, and then, of course, it went to a Standing Committee, and there we discussed at some length the principles which this Amendment raises, but this is the first time that they have been before the House, and I cannot think that it is desirable that the House for the first time, and, of course, the last time, should have to consider these important matters at this hour of the morning. However, that is a matter which we shall revert to perhaps more legitimately from the point of view of order when we come to the Third Reading of the Bill.
For the moment I will deploy the arguments which we put forward in Committee, and which almost persuaded the hon.


and learned Gentleman, but not quite; so that we have to put them forward again; and this time we hope to persuade him and his hon. Friends behind him—yes, there are some here now—so that we may make this Amendment to the Bill.
It is really a very striking change in the law which is proposed by Clause 3, because in a contract one can exclude all kinds of things by agreement between the parties, and if this Bill is passed it will still be possible to exclude by agreement a great many things such as certain implied statutory obligations, but one thing which it will not be possible to exclude is the fact of innocent misrepresentation. I emphasise "innocent" because this Bill is about innocent misrepresentation only, not fradulent misrepresentation. It is innocent misrepresentations which may be made by word of mouth and on the spur of the moment without any evidence of them in writing at all; these are picked out by Clause 3 and made matters which cannot be excluded even by the most express agreement between the parties. This is, of course, in accordance with the recommendations in the Report of the Jenkins Committee, and that is why it finds a place in the Bill.
The reason for this somewhat dramatic interference with the freedom of contract is the quite legitimate one that there is a certain degree of pression derived from the use of long and complicated forms of contract when we are dealing with private individuals. In fact this proposal is an attempt to redress the obvious inequality or imbalance between two parties to a contract, the one who is the large organisation, the seller normally, and the other the individual, normally the buyer, who is presented with one of these complicated contracts with a good deal of small print on it, and signs or agrees, and then is bound by a lot of conditions one of which may be a clause excluding all liability on the part of the vendor for misrepresentations. These are familiar. There are many cases about them. Certainly we on this side recognise that this is an abuse about which something ought to be done on the lines of Clause 3.
But the difficulty about Clause 3 as it is drafted is that it applies to all contracts. It did not originally do so because the inappropriateness of its applying to all

contracts was recognised by the Government. They recognised that it was inappropriate to large contracts. So when they put the Bill forward in another place Clause 3 was in a different form, a very complicated form.
When we considered this matter in the Standing Committee the Solicitor-General begged to be excused from going into all the complications of that form, and since he has been kind enough to send it to me, I share his attitude and beg equally to be excused from going into all those complications. Suffice it to say that there was a form which attempted to meet this difficulty.
When we try to meet obvious difficulties there is almost always someone who does not appreciate our efforts. Certain noble Lords criticised the drafting of Clause 3, and it was changed and took its present form. That is why we have tabled the Amendment.
Hon. Members will recognise that so drastic a proposal as invalidating all exclusion clauses could not be put in without some qualification. It is absolutely inappropriate where there is equality between the parties to the contract. If two large companies are making a contract, they both have their legal departments and technical advisers; there are very often long and complicated negotiations. They are well skilled to examine claims made on behalf of the product of one side or the other. Indeed, they much prefer to deal at arm's length, to have one side putting forward its claims and then examining them, recognising that they are claims by an interested party, to reach their conclusions, to strike the bargain and the price and know that the contract so arrived at will stand.
But all this is as far removed as possible from the case of the doorstep salesman and the housewife signing on the bottom of a written contract, which, of course, is, above all, though not exclusively, what Clause 3 is aimed at.
So the Confederation of British Industry was very disquieted by the recommendation of the Jenkins Committee and the first proposal to put forward an unqualified invalidation of exclusion clauses, and it made representations to the Government. No doubt that was one of the reasons for the original form of Clause 3.


Then, as I said, Clause 3 ran into rough weather in another place and was changed to its present form.
As the Solicitor-General told us in Committee, the Confederation of British Industry has eventually been persuaded to acquiesce in the present form of the Clause, but the fact that the Confederation has been persuaded to acquiesce in it should by no means be taken to indicate that it is happy about it and that it positively rejoices in the present form of the Clause.
The present form of the Clause, which we are trying to change, recognises the difficulty I have been describing and seeks to solve it by conferring on the court a discretion—lines 22–25 in the Clause as it stands—so that the exclusion clause is invalidated only if the court thinks that it should be; or, to put it the other way round, it is invalidated unless the court thinks it should not be.
What in practice is the use of an exclusion clause which at the time it is negotiated is of unknown validity? Large contractors want certainty. They do not want to draw up a contract and agree upon a clause excluding liability for innocent misrepresentation and not know whether that clause has any effect until it is challenged in the courts, because the alternative is stark. It is either of full force and effect or, in the discretion of the court, of no force and effect. They cannot know, except by taking it to court and getting the court to exercise its discretion.
That is plainly undesirable—I do not think that anyone pretends that it is not—if it can be avoided. Our proposal is, instead, to amend the Clause so as to provide that the invalidation of the exclusion clause shall be of no effect
if it is contained in an agreement where the consideration for the agreement is under £20,000 in money or money's worth".
So the Clause would operate where the contract was under £20,000 and would not operate, and the exclusion clause would be valid, where the contract was over £20,000.
The Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in Committee was in the same form but specified £100,000. At the end of an interesting

debate, the Solicitor-General said that he would give the matter his consideration. So that Amendment was withdrawn. The Solicitor-General, as he promised to do, wrote to my hon. and learned Friend and myself setting out very carefully indeed the considerations which impelled him not to accept our argument and not himself to table an Amendment at this stage of the Bill. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended that letter to be in any way confidential.

The Solicitor-General: No.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Bell: The letter was written in execution of an express undertaking which was given openly. I am very grateful to the Solicitor-General for the trouble that he took. In his letter, after reciting the difficulties which attend either course, because there are some, he says this:
…suppose we accepted your £100,000 limit: although, in all probability, those contracts which were let out would all be ones which ought to be let out,"—
that is, those of £100,000 and over—
we should still catch a great many which we did not want to catch, because many negotiated contracts"—
by negotiated contracts the hon. and learned Gentleman meant those negotiated by a process of negotiation between approximately equal persons—
are for much less than £100,000."—
which, of course, is true—
We could, of course, choose a lower limit—say £50,000 or £25,000. But, even then, we should catch too many contracts where there is no need to protect either party…. On the other hand, once you start bringing the limit down much below £10,000, you start letting out the ordinary contract for the sale of a private house,…
Therefore, one criticism the hon. and learned Gentleman made was that we had pitched our figure too high and that we should catch many people who did not need protection. That is why we have chosen the figure of £20,000, because while we shall catch by the Clause a few people who do not need protection, because they are too big, it is perhaps right in a Clause of that kind to incline in favour of the Clause's policy and to give too much protection rather than too little.
But the hon. and learned Gentleman's basic objection is that he feels that


judicial discretion is better because of the difficulty of definition. It is true that there must be a zone of doubt around the chosen figure, and I recognise that. One cannot define what one means by consideration with such precision that people will always know on which side of the line they come. Therefore, there will be a zone of doubt around the figure of £20,000. But, of course, doubt is the result of abandoning certainty in the attempt to obtain more exact justice, which is exactly the nature of the Bill as well as of Clause 3. There is now complete certainty because the clauses are valid. Once one decides that one will make some invalid, but not all, one cannot avoid an area of doubt. The Clause as it stands creates uncertainty throughout the whole range. Nobody, whatever the magnitude of the contract, will know for certain whether the clause in the contract is valid or wholly invalid. Our Amendment gives certainty everywhere, except near the margin, and the number of cases that will fall so close to the margin will be a very small proportion of the total.
We accept the policy of the Clause as desirable, but think it possible to get the advantage it seeks without paying so high a price in uncertainty for the merchant community as the Clause now exacts. For those reasons, we ask the House to accept the Amendment, which will be a material improvement of this quite valuable Clause in a quite valuable Bill.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I support the Amendment, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has moved in terms that have made its purposes very clear. Unless amended, the Clause will have profound practical effects for those who must deal with the everyday problems of commerce, and particularly those who have to advise merchants and others about the conduct of their affairs.
I was very impressed by my hon. and learned Friend's arguments about the necessity for certainty in the law. I believe that we are moving into times when there is growing uncertainty in the law and growing difficulty in advising. As someone who must advise clients from

time to time, I very much regret the circumstances which frequently arise—and even more frequently in recent legislation—of not being able to give somebody a direct and clear answer to a question.
Like my hon. and learned Friend, I fully accept the desire of the Government and of the Jenkins Committee to protect certain people from the effects of innocent misrepresentation, and if there has to be a compromise, that certainty has to be diluted so that people can be protected, I think probably this compromise must be made, but I feel that this Clause unamended goes much too far. Unamended, it affects every contract and leaves the decision plainly to the court.
I cannot think that anybody, as the Clause stands, could advise their client whether an exemption clause would be accepted by the courts or not, because the discretion given to the court is so wide.
The court, or arbitrator, as the Clause, unamended, says:
may allow reliance on it as being fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Unless we amend, every discretion to which the Clause refers is to be subject to that.
The sort of question which advisers will be asked is, "We would like an exemption Clause in this contract. We are quite satisfied. We made full investigation on both sides. If we put in the lease an exemption Clause, can we rely on the court finding that the circumstances are fair and reasonable?" It would be a very brave man who gave a positive "Yes" or "No" to that. It seems, under the Clause unamended, to rest on the feelings of the judge dealing with the case. It would be very difficult for this to be the subject of an appeal because it is a personal decision of a judge on a particular set of circumstances.
Having accepted the reasons for the Clause, I think it would be proper that there should be some limit to it, if only for purposes of trial, to see how it works in practice. Therefore, I support the Amendment that the figure should be £20,000, and that, above that, parties should be free to negotiate contracts fully and have an exemption which would be binding on the courts.
The sum of £20,000 is a fair figure in house purchase. One imagines that a man who can afford to pay £20,000 for a


house would be able to pay for a full structural survey to make sure that the house is structurally sound. It is out of this sort of structural defect that difficulties are likely to arise.
It is a different matter where people are buying a house at £2,000 or £1,800, or less, as happens very frequently outside London. Those people have enough to do to pay a deposit without paying for a structural survey and they should be protected, but we should treat people who can afford to pay £20,000 as adults, as people knowing their own mind and able to afford advice. If we can have certainty in that top bracket, it would be an improvement in the Bill. For those reasons I should like to support the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has described correctly what has happened so far. It is true that a similar Amendment was moved, albeit with a different consideration, by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in Committee. At that time, I said that I would consider the point and would communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman and with other hon. and learned Gentlemen who had spoken in the debate. That is what I did, and I hope that I approached the matter with an open mind.
My advisers and I considered the arguments put before us in Committee, because I do not regard this as being a matter of party controversy, and we came to the conclusion that the Amendment or a similar one ought not to be accepted.
We start with the Jenkins Committee. As I said upstairs, we are not bound to accept the recommendations of any Committee, however authoritative it may be. It was a very high-powered Committee, and its recommendations are entitled to be treated with respect. No doubt it considered the sort of point which has been made by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), but it came to the conclusion that there should not be any differentiation of the sort proposed in the Amendment.
The Amendment is similar to the one moved in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, the only difference being that he proposed a con-

sideration of £100,000, whereas now it is proposed to be £20,000. I do not want to repeat myself, but I pointed out certain objections to it which apply no less to the present Amendment.
It is not always easy to say what is the precise amount of the consideration in any contract. There might be a contract for the hire of expensive plant over a period of time. It might be a very long period, and there might be provision for payment year by year. Let us suppose that such a contract provides for the payment of £5,000 for seven years, with provision for termination of the contract in less than seven years. In circumstances of that kind, who can say whether the contract is over £20,000 or under it? As I endeavoured to point out in Committee, in the case of a partnership agreement the amount which is at stake for the parties to the agreement might be unascertainable when the agreement is made. One cannot always say in the case of every contract what is the amount of the consideration.
There is a further objection, however. What is here proposd is that we should make a division between two classes of contract. It is proposed that exclusion clauses should be a matter for the courts to decide if it is under £20,000, but not if it is over £20,000. That test would produce the wrong result in too many cases. If the amount is put too high—and it must be a rather arbitrary figure, whether it is £100,000, £50,000 or £20,000—there will be many contracts where the exclusion clause ought to operate and where it will be invalidated. If it is taken the other way and one gets contracts which are under the figure, there are cases where the exclusion clause ought to operate and where it will be invalidated. If it is taken the other way and one gets contracts which are under the figure, there are cases where the exclusion clause ought to be struck out and they ought to be subject to the kind of procedure envisaged in the Bill. However, the result which we should all wish to see would not be achieved. An entirely arbitrary difference between the two is being introduced.
As we have been reminded by the hon. and learned Member for Buckingham, South, this Clause has a fairly long history. It will be recalled that the Measure was first introduced in the last


Parliament and is one of those which came to an end because of the General Election. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, it is true that originally an attempt was made by the Government to draw between one class of contract and another.
That matter was fully debated in another place, and I should be out of order if I tried to quote from speeches other than those of Members of the Government made in another place, but I think that all hon. Members who have studied this matter are familiar with them. Hon. Members may remember in particular the speech made by Lord Reid who speaks with great authority in this matter. He came down very strongly on the side of giving the courts, as is here proposed, an absolute discretion.
As I did in the letter which I sent to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, a copy of which I sent to the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, I should like to draw attention—because I think it is material—to the recent uniform commercial code drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on uniform state laws in the United States. They gave very close consideration to precisely this sort of problem, and recommended that the courts should be given a wide discretion to apply the doctrine of unconscionability which has been adopted in most of the States of the United States of America, whereby, if there is a provision in a contract which the courts hold to be unconscionable, they can refuse to give effect to the clause. We are proposing to follow a similar principle here.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for North Fylde. I know that he speaks from considerable professional experience of this matter. We have all had to advise our clients on matters of this sort as to what the courts are likely to decide. If I may say so with respect, I do not think the difficulty is as great as he made out.
Let us suppose that there is the sort of case which I think he and the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South had in mind, the sort of case in which there are two large corporations in precisely the same position. They are both fully advised, and they arrive at a contract which includes an

exclusion clause. I would not have thought it was very difficult to advise a client in circumstances of that kind. Almost certainly the court would look at the circumstances in which the contract was framed. It would take account of the standing of the parties, the sort of advice which the companies would have received, and it would give effect, I have no doubt, to the exclusion clause. I would not have thought it was a very difficult matter to advise a client in a case of that sort.
But when we are dealing with these matters, we are always up against a difficulty. There have been various attempts over the last two years to draw a distinction between one class of contract and another. If we try to draw this sort of distinction of amount, we run into the kind of difficulty which I have sought to describe. If we try to draw a distinction of another kind, we run into the sort of difficulties which were debated in the other place, and I submit that there is no danger. We are not really introducing an element of great uncertainty if we give this wide discretion to the courts to decide when an exclusion is reasonable and when it is not.
The courts obviously will take account of the sort of contract which is entered into. They will take account of the status of the parties, and the legal advice which was available to the parties at the time when the contract was made. Therefore, the Government have come to the conclusion that we ought to follow the course proposed in this Clause, and we ought to give the courts the discretion which is here sought.

Mr. Ian Percival: We have had a fairly substantial debate on this, both in Committee and here, and therefore it is possible to be quite brief, but I think the Solicitor-General agrees that there is an important point of principle here, and a very difficult one. The point to which a good deal of attention has been given, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, has been discussed on entirely non-party lines by lawyers in both Houses who seek nothing except to make the Bill as clear and as useful as it can be. Since we are agreed on that much I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree that it is worth spending a few more minutes on it.


I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that one of the important points of principle involved is that we ought not to interfere in contracts made between parties unless there is very good reason for doing so. One should not interfere in contracts between parties who can look after themselves.
I venture to say a few words at this time in the morning because I regard this as a principle of immense importance. Far too much of what this House does is done on argument which, when one gets down to it, is wet-nursing the poor people of this country because they cannot look after themselves. If we are not jolly careful, by taking responsibility for them, we shall lead them to look to the House for protection all the time instead of relying on their own effort. This is something about which the House should be awfully careful and not say that we must look after people because they cannot look after themselves and they have not got the sense.
Having said all that, of course it is a fact that in some cases one party is at a disadvantage compared with the other and therefore there is an argument for giving some protection to the one against the other.
When one recognises the importance of both these considerations the difficulty one continually faces is where to draw the line. Several attempts have been made in this case already and I am going to suggest another one. If it appeals to the Solicitor-General and I speak long enough perhaps he will submit a manuscript Amendment. Our objection to the present situation is the uncertainty which it introduces. I will not dilate on how much uncertainty. The Solicitor-General says that it would not introduce as much uncertainty as my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) thought would be introduced by it. It is a strange argument, because the whole reason that we are giving unfettered discretion to the courts is that we find ourselves unable to define the cases to which this Clause is to apply.
Both Houses have tried hard to define the cases to which Clause 3 is to apply and neither has been successful. Therefore, the solution which is suggested is to leave it to the judges to decide what is

reasonable. How then can any lawyer, called upon to advise his client, say to which it will apply and to which it will not apply? I find this difficult to follow.
I agree that, if we have to leave this to someone else to decide, there is no better body to leave it to than Her Majesty's judges. We will soon get a body of case law built up and it will make clear what the House has failed to decide. I do not doubt that they will do it better than we would have done.
The questions that the House has to ask itself are these. Is it right to cast this extra burden on the courts to decide what we find it impossible to decide? Second, is it right to cast the burden on the litigants who will have to bring the cases which will have to be decided before we know to which kind of case Clause 3 will apply? It will be small comfort to them that their names will go down as leading cases in the law reports: they will have had to suffer all the uncertainties and costs of getting that clarification.
We believe that it is wrong to cast those burdens on the courts and the litigants and that it is better to have precise provisions, even if they are not perfect. The Solicitor-General dwelt upon the Amendment's imperfections. We know that it will still leave defects, but his argument that it might be difficult in some cases to decide whether a consideration was £20,000 is not a good one. In the cases of which we are thinking, it is clear that the parties are dealing with a sum that large or far greater.
What should be clear, if nothing else is, is that such contracts should be quite outside these provisions. Any hon. Member would have great difficulty in suggesting any contract for which the consideration was £20,000 or more and in which one of the parties ought to have the protection of Clause 3. To that extent, the argument for the Amendment is both unanswerable and unanswered.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's other main objection was that the Amendment would create an arbitrary difference between those above and those below this level. While I was listening to this part of his argument the possible solution struck me, and I now put it forward. If accepted, would the Amendment not exclude every contract in which the consideration was £20,000 or over? We


would all agree that that would be right. All we need to do to overcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's second objection is to widen the existing provisions for contracts not excluded by the Amendment.
For these reasons, I earnestly ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to think again about the purposes of the Amendment and his objections to it.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

2.25 a.m.

Mr. Percival: One wonders how many people in the House, let alone in the country, appreciate what a substantial change is being made in our law by this little Bill. For centuries, it has been one of the cardinal points of the common law of this country, summed up in the Latin tag caveat emptor; for generations, law students have learned as the first thing they have ever learned that innocent misrepresentation does not carry liability for damage.

Mr. David Mitchell: I apologise for intruding upon my hon. and learned Friend's speech, but he has drawn attention to the fact that this is a very important Bill which makes not only an important but a fundamental change in our law. As a layman, not being a member of the Bar, I have found it very difficult to follow the debate. Is it not therefore all the more ridiculous that at 2.30 a.m. we should be asked to consider—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure if the hon. Member is addressing the Chair on a point of order. If he is, then I have to tell him that it is not a point of order. If he is making an observation on the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, then I have to tell him that it is not relevant to the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Mitchell: If the House had sat normally and there had been no morning sitting but we had been here for the same number of hours, it would now be half past five in the morning. Having sat that long, I am sure the Government would now wish to adjourn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Percival: I sympathise with what my hon. Friend has just said, I appreciate how dull this must be, but that fact does not mean he can raise a point of order.
I was about to say that I hope that those hon. Members who are still here, and still awake, will take a little interest in this Bill because it does make a complete change in our law. The Bill reverses something which has been well known to be the law of this country for a very long time. I venture to think that that is one point upon which the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General will not quarrel but will agree with me. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member thinks that this is a laughing matter—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): Who is laughing?

Mr. Percival: —or something about which to make cat calls, then it is very regrettable.

Mr. Loughlin: Who is making cat calls?

Mr. Percival: It is a matter of great regret that the Leader of the House should once again so have mismanaged the business of the House, or so under-estimated the importance of this Bill, that he put this Bill on the Order Paper for the same day as other business which, I should have thought, anyone would have known would have precluded us from reaching this Bill except at around the present hour.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, I would like to say—

Mr. Percival: I am very willing to give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a point of order.

Mr. Steel: The hon. and learned Member may not be aware that I have been sitting here waiting for an Adjournment debate on a fairly important subject and have had to listen six times to hon. Members on the Conservative benches complaining about the time. All this mumbling drivel is only postponing the time when we shall get to that subject which, as I have said, is fairly important. There are no members of the public present, and very few hon. Members of the House.


Why must we continually be told of the importance of this Bill? Why cannot members of the Conservative Party in this House get on with it?

Mr. Percival: One of the things one learns about that kind of arrogant intervention is that it serves only to lengthen even further the time taken. The kind of interventions I have been listening to—one sitting and the other standing, so at least there has been some variety—have served to illustrate the point that at least two hon. Members have not yet understood the importance of the Bill. I hope that by the time I have finished they will do so.

Mr. Loughlin: We might if the hon. and learned Gentleman says something.

Mr. Percival: Some uncertainties arise as to the meaning of the Bill, and I hope that even at this stage the Solicitor-General will tell us what the Bill means and what he says it does. It will be some comfort to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security, who keeps interrupting from a sitting position, to know that it was my intention at one stage—if I have more interruptions I may change my intention again—to deal with one of these points by reference to the Amendment we have just been discussing.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has drawn attention to some of the uncertainties arising from Clause 3. I shall not go over the ground again, but there is another aspect which I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain before we decide whether the Bill should become law. This is a question of what provisions Clause 3 refers to.
The question of excluding liability only arises if there is some liability. Under Clause 2, for instance, there would only be some liability if the purchaser had relied upon a representation because, as I understand the present law, it does not matter how many representations are made; what matters is to what extent, if at all, the purchaser relied upon them. Supposing, after lengthy negotiations, a vendor says to a purchaser, "No, I shall not sign. I shall not actually conclude the contract. I have just discovered the Misrepresentation Act. I cannot remember

everything that has been said in the negotiations, for we have had a great deal of chatter. I will only go on with the contract if you agree that we wipe out everything said so far and make a fresh start."
That is a practical possibility. For the avoidance of doubt in the written contract, supposing it was said that no reliance was being placed by the purchaser on the representations made prior to the date. Would Clause 3 apply to that provision? If it would not be a provision to which Clause 3 would apply, is it not possible to drive a coach and horses through it at once? If it does apply, then does it have a practical effect which is neither foreseen nor intended? I have probably said enough for the Solicitor-General to have the point in mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If any hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side are not clear on the point and would like a further exposition of it, nothing would give me more pleasure than to give it to them.
The second aspect of contract in which we feel that uncertainty may be introduced is in house purchase and conveyancing. To put the minds of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite at rest, however, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who has much greater experience in that matter than I, proposes to ask certain questions about it and I shall, therefore, leave it to him.
The third matter in connection with which I would like the Solicitor-General to help us is what is supposed to be the meaning of the last four lines of Clause 2(1), namely, what a vendor has to prove to avoid liability. Here again, I shall be fairly technical to keep the matter brief, but if any hon. Member below the Gangway on the Government side wishes me to enlarge or expand upon it, I hope that he will indicate that desire to me.
The words on which I am asking for further information are to be found in page 1, line 20:
unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true.
It can, I am sure, be agreed that they are an important part of the Bill, and it is important that the House should know


what they mean before we pass them, because once the House passes them other people will have to make their decisions, which will depend on knowing what those words mean. Therefore, if there be a doubt about them, it is important that it be resolved.
What is clear about those words is that the onus will be on the vendor to establish that there were grounds for believing what he says he believes and that those grounds were present to his mind. Our discussion of the matter in Committee was bedevilled a little by the use of the words "objective test" and "subjective test" and whether the whole thing was an objective test or a subjective test. It was bedevilled by that discussion because one cannot call this either an objective or a subjective test. On the two aspects with which I have already dealt—I take this from a letter which the Solicitor-General was kind enough to write to me—it is clear that the vendor will have to establish that there were grounds for his belief and that they were present to his mind, the first part of that being objective and the second subjective. We then come to the meaning of "reasonable", and it is upon this that I invite the Solicitor-General to give the House the further benefit of his advice.
One could, I suppose, say that if the person making the representation were a skilled or professional man, in judging what was reasonable the courts would have regard to what was reasonable for a skilled or a professional man; one can probably go that far. If that be so, however, is not that a subjective test? Is not that looking at the skill or the professional expertise of the representor? In any event, one still comes up against the question of what is reasonable.
I quite agree with the Solicitor-General in what he wrote to me—that there is no difficulty here where someone has exceptional knowledge or skill; such a person will be caught by the second leg of these provisions because a person has got to say not only that he had reasonable ground to believe but also that he did believe. Therefore if one had someone with exceptional skill, knowledge or expertise on a particular point, he might be in great difficulty in persuading the court that he did believe.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) indicates dissent, but I am really rather conceding a point against myself—

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am indicating dissent for a totally different reason, because I believe that probably the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentions is one that is already accommodated by the present law, in that there are two exceptions to the question of redress for innocent misrepresentation in these circumstances; one, where there is a fiduciary relationship, and secondly, what was defined in the Hedley Byrne case in 1963, where there is a special relationship, and that is one which normally covers all cases of occupational advisers.

Mr. Percival: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention because I must make it clear that I was not referring to skilled or professional advice given by skilled or professional men. I am thinking in terms of a representation made by a skilled or professional person who is selling something, I could see that in such a case the person might be caught by the second leg of this, and so the difficulty of interpreting reasonableness might not come into it.
But that is rather a special category, and the difficulty, I think, is this—and this is the one on which we need assistance. Whenever one postulates a test of reasonableness, it follows that there is some reasonable standard, some reasonable knowledge, some reasonable skill, that the average man is supposed to have. It follows that there will be some who will have more than that but some who will have less than that. The man who has got more than the norm, whatever it may be, may well get caught by the second leg of this proposition and may well have difficulty in proving that he did believe. But what of the man with less than the average or reasonable knowledge, whatever that may be? Is he to be judged by some higher standard, by some attributes which through no fault of his own he does not enjoy? This, I think, is the difficulty.
I think I can best put my point in lay terms by relating it to someone who is selling a motor car. Let us supose he had said it was a good runner, or that the engine was in good order, or something like that, and that he had said it


despite the fact that there was a noise under the bonnet, a noise which perhaps an expert could have identified had he gone to considerable trouble in looking. Now would that expert, supposing that he did not take the trouble to look, qualify? Would he bring himself within the provisions of this defence or would he not?
Now let us leave out the expert and pass on to the layman. One can visualise the layman: there are laymen who have all sorts of standards of knowledge of what goes on under the bonnet of a motor car; some have a very good idea; others simply have not got a clue. What tests would one apply here? Apart from the question of their knowledge of what goes on under the bonnet of a motor car because of their knowledge of mechanics, of mechanical science, and so on, some people know something because it has happened to them before. Somebody may have heard a frightful knocking under the bonnet and may have known nothing about it at all until the engine fell out, but if he should hear that noise again he will know that the engine is not in good order; but somebody else may have had the car before the engine fell out, and were he to hear the noise he would not know that it ought to put him on inquiry.
Are these people all to be judged by the same standards? If they are to be judged by the same standards, it is a bit odd, is it not? It does not make much sense. Or are they going to be judged by different standards? And if they are to be judged by different standards, is it not right to say that the test is mainly a subjective test? If we are to have an objective test, then what is the reasonable amount of knowledge which we are to attribute to the reasonable owner of a motor car at the time when he is selling that motor car, and by which to judge whether he had "reasonable grounds for believing" or not? One has only to postulate the question to see that it is virtually impossible to answer it. But this is what we are expecting the courts to do. No wonder we cannot be more precise than this ourselves. No wonder we have to foist it off on to someone else.
The final point on this is that, whatever the court may decide is the reasonable amount of knowledge which a

reasonable owner of a motor car must he assumed to have, there will be ever so many owners of motor cars who have less than that knowledge. Are they to be judged by the hypothetically reasonable amount of knowledge? Because if so, where is the equity in that? Or are they to be judged on their actual knowledge? In which case one is right back to the subjective test.
I have illustrated this in relation to motor cars and by taking just a few of the difficulties. Any Member of this House could expand on that. Just think of the range of things—not just houses or motor cars, but wireless sets, television sets, refrigerators, washing machines, all of which may entail technical considerations, of which there will be no two people with the same amount of knowledge. Whereas one man will be very knowledgeable, another man will not have the slightest idea of what makes the thing work.
When one looks at these difficulties, does not one get back quite fairly and properly to the two questions which I put in connection with the uncertainties about exclusions? Is this not an undue burden to place on the judges of this country, who will be called upon to decide what this House has been unable to clarify for itself? And is it not placing an undue burden on the litigant, who will have to bring litigation, and pay for it, to get clarification which does not so far exist?
It may be that the Solicitor-General can answer all these questions. Unless there is a clear answer to the difficulties which I have tried to illustrate in these few examples, we shall be passing legislation the meaning of which we are unable to state in many important cases. It is wrong for the House to pass legislation the meaning of which it is itself unable to ascertain. If the Government insist on going ahead with this in spite of those doubts as to the meaning of the Bill's provisions, let us hope that it will be clearly understood by the public, who will be the sufferers, that responsibility for the situation in which they will be placed lies with the Government.

2.55 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sure there will be general acceptance for the main provisions of the Bill. I am


glad that the Government have found time this Session, as in the last Parliament, to implement the recommendations of the Tenth Report of the Law Reform Committee.
There is no doubt that in general the Measure will enable an appropriate remedy to be gained by a representee who under the law as it stands, through no fault of his own, has no redress. It is certain also that this amendment to the law will affect a wide section of the public.
But it may well be that the proposers of the legislation have allowed their reforming zeal in this case to go a little too far in that they have seen fit to include in the provisions of the Bill the case of a conveyance of land and of a lease for three years and upwards which was not contained in the original Bill.
There are three cogent and, I trust, compulsive reasons why the Bill should not relate to those transactions. First, the Law Reform Committee, which reported in 1962, dealt specifically with this point, and after considering the evidence of various bodies which had submitted memoranda to the Committee, which also comprised 15 distinguished lawyers and has been described by the Solicitor-General as being a high-powered Committee, and rightly so, came to the conclusion that once a conveyance or lease had been executed rescission should not allow for innocent misrepresentation.
Secondly, apart from the memoranda submitted to the Committee, it is obvious that there is a conviction shared by those who have the greatest knowledge of these transactions from day to day that rescission would not be an appropriate remedy in such cases. This point was very clearly made by the Lord Chancellor in another place:
Consultation has taken place between the Government and bodies who have great experience of contracts relating to land—the Chartered Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Law Society—and all three bodies express themselves as being in favour of keeping this subsection…."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, House of Lords, 17th May, 1966; Vol.274, c.927.]
That was the subsection which would have made an exception of the Bill with regard to real property.
Thirdly, it is essential, not so much as a tribute to the traditional conservatism of lawyers as an acknowledgement of deep-lying distinctions, to exempt the operation of the Bill in relation to land. The case in this respect is very fairly argued by the Jenkins Committee. It deals with the case where rescission is sought because of a defect of title and points out that this would be manifestly unfair because the purchaser should, the execution of conveyance, have had every opportunity of examining the correctness of the title.
The Jenkins Committee goes on on pages 4 and 5 of its Report to say this:
It is arguable that the same opportunities for examination do not exist in the case of defects not relating to title—for example, structural flaws or disrepair and decay in parts of a building—and it may be that at the present time, when housing accommodation is still scarce, a prospective purchaser is often unable to examine a house as thoroughly as he would like. Nevertheless, we think that in the case of sales of land finality should be the predominant consideration. The vendor will often have spent the proceeds of sale on the purchase of another house and so be unable to repay them. The purchase of a house is commonly linked with the raising of a mortgage and perhaps a sequence of other transactions. Rescission of one sale may thus start a chain reaction. The purchaser who buys a house in reliance on the vendor's representations and without an adequate survey, like one who buys without fully investigating the title, must know that he is taking a risk.
I believe that the law relating to the rescission of sales of land, and of chattels for that matter, on grounds of innocent misrepresentation has been in a state of some dubiety for some considerable time. It does not go back through the centuries, as mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, in the case of sales of land it dates to 1848 and in the case of chattels to the Seddon case of 1905. It seems that from 1950 onwards, since the authoritative dicta of Sir Raymond Evershed in the case of Leaf v. International Galleries, a great deal of that doubt has been removed.
I accept also that Parliament is confronted with a very great dilemma in this case. It must opt between the finality of a conveyance, on the one hand, and the possible hardship to a small number of persons—for rescission, after all, can apply only where third party interests have not been created—on the other. To shatter the finality of a conveyance, however, would be to destroy a principle of


very long standing. It would mean that it would be possible to disregard the unanimous and considered views of distinguished members of the Law Reform Committee and to create a confusion in the practice of conveyancing, whilst at the same time leaving vendors after the execution of a conveyance in a state of complete uncertainty and indecision.

3.3 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to follow the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) in his questions about the effect of Clause 1 on conveyancing. As the House will know by now, Clause 1 is that Clause which allows a party to a contract who alleges innocent misrepresentation on the part of the other party to the contract to rescind that contract. This will very seriously affect conveyancing, which is undertaken by two main documents. On selling a house one first enters into a contract for sale. One then investigates the title and other matters about the property of the house. The contract is finally completed by a conveyance or, if it is registered land, by a transfer. Before the contract is entered into, the vendor may well have said in conversation to the purchaser, "The drains are all right, old boy. They have never given me any trouble", or, "The roof's very sound. I never get a drop through it." The contract is then entered into and if the drains happen to be fractured, although the vendor knew nothing about it and made his representation innocently, and the roof happened to have dry rot, that would be a ground under Clause 1 for the rescission of the contract.
It would be no defence for the vendor to say, "I believed what I said. I had no reason to think that I was saying anything wrong." That exception comes into Clause 2(1), when he is suffering a claim for damages, and can say, "I believed what I said and had no reason to think that I was wrong". But that defence does not apply to Clause 1, when rescission of the contract is demanded by the party who has suffered from innocent misrepresentation of the other. It might be that damages are justifiable in such a case, that we should say that the vendor is the person who should pay and not the purchaser. But that is

a different proposition from saying that the contract, and therefore the conveyance, should be rescinded and that the parties should be put back in the position they were in before the property was sold.
Clause 1 states:
Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to to him, and
(a) the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract;"—
I do not think that the sort of example I have given would become a term of the contract—
or
(b) the contract has been performed;".
What I understand from the performance of a contract for the purchase and sale of property is the conveyance or transfer of that property and the completion of the contract, but I am thrown into some doubt by the words of the Lord Chancellor in the Committee stage of the Bill in another place on 18th October, when he said:
…there is the reason that it has always been part of our law of misrepresentation, and still will be, that a contract cannot be rescinded if the parties cannot be restored to the position in which they were originally, and that it is also part of our law that there cannot be rescission if the rights of third parties have come in question. Nothing in the Bill alters that situation.
I hesitate to question the opinion of the noble Lord Chancellor, but surely the words, "the contract has been performed" wholly alter the present law in that if there has been innocent misrepresentation, no matter that the contract has been performed, that in the sale of land the contract has been completed by a conveyance or transfer, Clause 1—the rescession Clause of the Bill—applies.
The Lord Chancellor added:
It is true that there will be many cases relating to interests in land where there is some chain reaction, where it is impossible to put the parties back to the position which they were in before or where the rights of third parties have been interposed. In those cases, there will not be rescission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 18th October, 1966; Vol.277, c.51–2]
Again, I question that opinion, because let us look at the ordinary transaction, many of which happen every day, of a chain of houses being sold and purchased. The vendor of one house simultaneously


buys another, that is, he spends the purchase money in buying another home for himself, or perhaps only in putting down the deposit, and getting the money from a building society or other mortgagor. This does not alter the position of the transaction between himself and the purchaser. This is something outside that contract. So, taking that contract alone, one can say that the parties can be put back in the same position as before, that it is only a matter of the purchaser handing back the house or of the vendor paying the purchaser back the money. It is irrelevant that the vendor has spent the money on something else and is nothing to do with the contract.
What will obviously happen as a result of Clause 1 is that where there has been misrepresentation, however innocent, in the contract for sale of a house, we may be presented afterwards with that purchaser demanding rescission and the vendor finding he has bought himself a new home and spent the money. He has to return it and take back his old home.
This problem comes at a time when inside the solicitors' profession we are trying to streamline conveyancing to reduce costs to the public and outside the profession there are protests about the costs of conveyancing. I wish there were more than two back benchers on the Government side to realise that this legislation will increase the costs of conveyancing and not reduce them.
I protest again about this type of Bill being brought before the House at this time, when the House has not had an opportunity of making any amendment to the Bill. It may be said that these Bills go to a Second Reading Committee because they are based on a Law Reform Commission Report, but this Clause as it stands is dead against this Report and this House as a House has never had an opportunity to consider it. It is completely contrary to the Report, to the advice of the professional bodies, of solicitors, and of everybody concerned with the practice of conveyancing, and I protest at this abuse of Second Reading Committee procedure to bring forward at 3.15 a.m. a Bill which makes such fundamental changes in the branches of law which most closely touch the everyday activities of the people.

3.16 a.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: The contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) have show clearly how insufferably arrogant was the intervention by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). This is a matter of great importance to the people of England and Wales. It is true that it does not affect Scotland, except in one Clause, but it has been clearly shown on both sides that there are matters of moment to be debated here tonight, and I can assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that I would not be here at 3.15 a.m. if I did not think it a matter of importance to my constituents and to my profession.

Mr. David Steel: I would not want the hon. Member to misunderstand me. I do not object to debating it, but that bad speech was wandering with no direction at all. I have listened to the last speech with interest.

Mr. Clegg: I understood the hon. Member to say, when he intervened, that this matter had been considered by a Committee and there was therefore no reason for it to be debated. Perhaps we can check it in HANSARD tomorrow. Nevertheless, I would add my plea to the Solicitor-General about the conveyancer. It will mean a great deal to the profession if this Bill goes through: a great deal in worry.
In any legal system, it is a great thing to have certainty. When the very home in which one lives is affected, the certainty that one may stay there when one's furniture has been moved in and that the transaction on which one depended to buy the house will not be rescinded gives a great deal of comfort.
From time to time, great hardship could be caused, but I do not think that rescission is the answer to the problem. I have spoken to many members of my profession, and they are disturbed about this. They are disturbed, too, about the practical implications in the Bill. Clause 1, for example, says:
Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him, and—(a) the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract…


That sounds simple, and, in theory, it is. But to build up a picture of what really happens when two laymen are talking over a transaction is extremely difficult. It would be hard for a judge to decide what was incorporated into a contract.
That and the discretionary items which we have discussed already, especially that in Clause 2, where a great onus is thrust on the court, will make this bear down hard on practitioners and, more important, on people because of the lack of certainty.
I want to make one last appeal to the learned Solicitor-General on the question of land. It would make a tremendous difference if he would take such transactions out of the Bill.

3.17 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: We are now engaged upon the Third Reading of the Bill, and it is not open to me or to anyone else to amend the Bill now. I have listened carefully to all the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the time has now arrived when they must make up their minds whether or not they are in favour of this Measure.
The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said that the Bill made a tremendous difference to the law, and that innocent misrepresentation has not been a ground for rescission from time immemorial. That is true. However, it is a part of the law which has led to considerable injustice to purchasers, and that is why we are changing the law. We are changing it in the sense suggested by the Jenkins Committee, and I was under the impression that the provisions of the Measure were accepted in all parts of the House. It has not been suggested up till now that it is a Measure to which the House should refuse consent, and it would be remarkable if hon. Gentleman were to vote against it at this stage.
The hon. and learned Gentleman again raised a matter which he had raised in Committee and about which he and I entered into correspondence. I wrote to him, as I did to one or two other hon. Gentlemen opposite, first, to say that it was not my intention to propose any Amendments on Report, and, second, in an endeavour to clear away the doubts

in their minds. It appears that I was not wholly successful in that endeavour.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went to Clause 3 and referred, in particular, to the concluding lines:
…that provision shall be of no effect except to the extent (if any) that, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, the court or arbitrator may allow reliance on it as being fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was raising the question whether that was an objective or subjective test. In my submission there cannot be any possible doubt about this. Words of this kind have been included in a great number of statutes, and it is always for the court to determine what is reasonable in the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman put to me the difference between somebody who was in a sense an expert, for example, the vendor of a motor car who happened to be a garage proprietor, or in some way an expert on motor cars, and an ordinary vendor who had no such expert knowledge. In those circumstances it would be for the vendor to give evidence as to what he knew and what were the facts of which he had knowledge, and no doubt the court in those circumstances would consider what was reasonable in the case of such a vendor. The court might apply a slightly different standard in the case of somebody else who did not have such expert knowledge, but in either case it is quite clear that this would be an objective test. The court would say, "What did you know?", and "What was reasonable in the circumstances?", and I suggest that that would give no particular difficulty to any tribunal.
I come now to the other point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), and by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). They were particularly concerned with transactions in real property, and the hon. Gentleman put to me the case of the sale of a house. He asked me to suppose that there had been a sale of a house, some defect was discovered afterwards, it might be that a third party had come into the matter, and it might be entirely unjust or inequitable to insist on recission in such a case. I suggest that in such a case, as


the Lord Chancellor said, the conveyance is unlikely to be rescinded because of the impossibility of restitution.
My answer is that a case of that sort would be covered by Clause 2(2) which says:
Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him otherwise than fraudulently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, that the contract ought to be or has been rescinded the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission…".
That is the option which is given to the court, and in the sort of case which has been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan, or by the hon. Member for Crosby, or by the hon. Member for North Fylde, it would follow that the court or arbitrator would almost certainly award damages in lieu of rescission. Therefore that matter is really fully covered.

Mr. Graham Page: I appreciate that subsection, and I have read it, but it says that the contract ought to be rescinded. In an ordinary transaction between a purchaser and a vendor of a house how on earth is the court to judge whether it ought to be rescinded or not?

The Solicitor-General: That depends on the misrepresentation. If the house has been purchased in reliance of a misrepresentation, it would follow that it was a contract which ought to be rescinded, but, for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, in this case rescission would not be a suitable remedy, and therefore damages would be awarded instead. I suggest that that sort of case is adequately covered by the provisions of Clause 2(2).
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan in right when he says that we have not followed the Law Reform Commit-

tee's recommendation in this matter. It was originally included, but after considerable debate in another place it was decided that it should be omitted. These are the points which have been raised on Third Reading.
I again say, in spite of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, that this is a Measure which is generally approved. It remedies a very long standing anomoly in the law which has led over the years to many injustices. Therefore, I invite the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to provide for the registration of persons engaged in giving instruction in the driving of motor vehicles, it is expedient to authorise—
1. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport in consequence of the provisions of the said Act, including any amount, directed by the said Minister to be treated as part of such expenses, of costs incurred by an appellant in connection with any appeal under that Act to the said Minister; and
(b) fees and expenses payable under that Act to any person or persons to whom any such appeal is referred for inquiry and report, or payable to any assessors appointed under that Act to assist such person or persons.
2. The payment into the Exchequer of any sums received on account of fees payable by virtue of any provision of that Act.—[Mr. Swingler.]

UNIVERSITY FEES (OVERSEAS STUDENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Mr. David Steel: At this late hour I wish to raise the subject of the proposed increases in fees for overseas students, and I should like to begin by informing the Minister of my particular interest in this matter. I was a student at the University of Edinburgh not so very long ago compared with when many hon. Members were at university. Edinburgh University, outside London University, has the highest proportion of overseas students in the country. I was president of the University Students Representative Council, and on several occasions I attended international students' conferences on behalf of the Scottish Union of Students of which I now am honorary vice-president, and I have been in close touch with them throughout the controversy.
Whatever we may think of the actual policy of the Government, the manner in which it has been handled is extremely bad. To announce this change of policy in a Written Answer the day before the House rose for the Christmas Recess was almost an admission that this was something of which the Government were ashamed and were trying to push out to the public at a time when not only the House was in recess but when the universities and colleges were in recess. Moreover, there was no prior consultation with either of the two student unions or the committee of vice-chancellors, or with the countries of origin from which the students came. The decision was made to raise the fees of overseas students attending universities in this country from about £70 to £250.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science, in a broadcast, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in another place, both suggested that this decision followed the recommendations of the Robins Committee for increases in fees all round. Of course, it was not at all in support of the recommendations of the Robbins Committee which, arguing that a greater proportion of university income should be made up from fees, said in paragraph 655:

We do not suggest that a higher fee be charged to overseas than to other students,".
In other words, it was quite contrary to the Robbins recommendations. The Robbins Committee went on:
We should greatly regret a dwindling in the number of overseas students in Britain's universities and colleges,".
The Committee went on to say that the hidden subsidy to overseas students was well justified as it was foreign aid which had a definite objective and yielded a tangible return in benefit to the recipients and in general good will.
The first point that I would like to make is that, contrary to the general impression given to the public, this decision is absolutely against the recommendations of the Robbins Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said in another place in the course of a debate there initiated by my noble Friend, Lord Gladwyn, that the reason for this decision was a financial one. This was clear. It was not a question of wanting to reduce the number of overseas students but of eventually saving £5 million a year.
Since the decision was announced, and thanks partly to the considerable protest with which it was met by hon. Members of all parties, another announcement was made—again in a Written Answer—that a fund would be set up to assist those overseas students in real financial difficulty. If that is to happen, presumably the fund will reduce the original estimate of a £5 million saving. By how much is it estimated to reduce the saving and what will be the administrative costs of the fund, which will also reduce the saving? I should like the Minister to answer this.
However, even if we accepted that the saving would eventually be £3 million or £4 million, it is a dangerous saving, giving rise to an entirely new principle for charging fees in our institutions of higher learning—a principle of discrimination. Overseas students will be paying about 3½ times as much in fees as British students. Does this mean that each college and university will have to issue a prospectus with two scales of fees—one for overseas students and one for home students?
This policy is contrary to that of most other countries. For example, the number of British students studying at European institutions is more than double the


number of European students in British institutions, and many of them are studying at a highly subsidised rate, in terms of accommodation, meals or fees.
The Government may argue that some of the overseas students will automatically receive higher grants when the fees go up. This is true of some, but 59 per cent. are privately financed.
This decision will have some curious effects. For example, the British Council gives five scholarships to South African students who are approved by the South African Government and can therefore be taken to approve of that Government's policies of apartheid. I will not go into the rights and wrongs of that now, but it is a fact. They will not be affected personally by the increase in fees, because presumably the British Council will increase the amounts of the scholarships to meet the increase in fees.
But the United Nations Training Programme for South Africa, which also finances South African students—generally those who have had to leave South Africa and do not support its apartheid policies—will have difficulties in meeting the increased cost. This Government, unlike Governments of other countries, pay no contribution to the programme. Therefore, on the one hand we seem to be encouraging students to come here who are financed by the Government of other countries—whether we approve or disapprove of them—and bringing into our scheme a kind of discouragement for those introduced here by private means.
There are various private means. There are the scholarships of the International Student Conference. In the late 50's, following the Hungarian Revolution, many Hungarian students came over here, paid for by fellow students at British universities. This was certainly the case in Edinburgh: they were financed by voluntary collections among their fellows.
Another interesting case which came to my notice only yesterday was that of a German lady who is now married to a British national and is a student at a university. Clearly, she will not be financed by her home Government because she has no intention of returning there and they are no longer interested in her from an educational point of view. She has settled in this country, but she will have to meet the extra fees from her own or her husband's resources.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development said that one aspect of this new policy would be that students would be encouraged to go to their own universities first. This may be an acceptable argument in some ways, but some students have nowhere to go. There are, for example, 334 students here from Mauritius. They cannot go anywhere else for higher education, and the effect of this policy will be to encourage other countries to attract students, particularly from the underdeveloped countries. I can well remember from my visits to universities behind the Iron Curtain that they will now appear to have attractions proportionately greater than those of our own, and all because of this decision.
Sir John Cockcroft, Master of Churchill College, Cambridge, in a letter of 20th January, says that this decision
…is bound to cause a great deal of hardship for students from developing countries. In this College alone we have 30 such students, very few of them supported by British Council grants".
Sir John adds,
I had a discussion with the High Commissioner for India about this yesterday and he was of the opinion that the result of this would be to divert a high proportion of the Indian students to the United States, who provide very good grants for their students.
We have benefited a very great deal in the past by having students from India, Pakistan, and developing countries. I am sure it has been a great source of our political and commercial strength. I was in Ghana recently and was impressed by the fact that the elite in Ghana who run the country, the Civil Servants, the University people, had all been educated in our universities".
One does not need to quote only a Liberal academic on this subject. Professor P. M. S. Blackett, the Government's adviser on technology, said last week at the annual luncheon of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, that this decision was of great concern to scientists. He said that if fewer students flowed into our postgraduate schools, the growth of British science and technology would be impaired.

Sir Edward Boyle: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned postgraduate students, but would he agree that one important aspect is the student who takes advantage of postgraduate facilities in this country and then helps to build up an African, for example, teaching centre on his return?

Mr. Steel: Yes, indeed. My own recollection of Edinburgh University was just that. It is not only that this is a most valuable thing in terms of foreign aid—that it does not affect our balance of payments as does direct financial assistance.
One of the striking features of my own time at Edinburgh University was the flow of students who were not going to become top civil servants—such as those of whom Sir John Cockcroft wrote—and Ministers in the 'eighties or 'nineties, but in the 'seventies. Some of my own contemporaries hold senior positions in their own countries, and I would say here that Edinburgh has a fine record in producing African graduates who later become statesmen.
If this decision to increase overseas students' fees had been taken by a Conservative Government, it would have been met by strong opposition; but, taken by a Labour Government, it has been met with a sense of outrage as well as opposition, especially in view of the statements of the Labour Party not only when in opposition but when in office. The Prime Minister, in a speech to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of UNESCO, said last October in London:
When I was called upon to form a Government two years ago, I showed our concern for those countries by appointing as a full-time member of the Cabinet, a Minister of Overseas Development, charged not only with the duty of administering Britain's aid programmes, Britain's contribution in development whether bilateral or multilateral, but also with the responsibility for the principal specialised agencies of the United Nations concerned with development in all its aspects. UNESCO is, of course, one of those organisations with which the Minister is particularly concerned".
The Prime Minister went on to deal with our economic difficulties:
We have done our best not to reduce our aid to developing countries and we have expanded wherever possible the assistance which our schools and more particularly universities can give to students from these countries. There are now 11,000 overseas students from developing countries taking university courses in this country…. The great majority of them, when they have completed their education, will be returning to the countries of Africa and Asia to pass on what they have learnt in this country. It is in this way that I believe we are making one of the most important contributions to the growth of literacy and to the spread of scientific and technological information.

Six months later, there is no Cabinet Minister responsible for overseas development and we have ceased to "expand the assistance our universities give to students from these countries" by increasing fees for overseas students. Yet it was the Prime Minister who, before the last election, was the man who said, I believe, that the language of socialism was the language of priorities.
Many people in our universities—the united force we have seen both of students and the Principal and Senatus of Edinburgh and of Dundee and leading members of many other universities—will consider it a peculiar kind of priority which lies behind this decision while at the same time the Government publish the Defence White Paper with defence estimates which show that the saving proposed by increasing these fees is ·02 per cent. of the defence budget.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science, in his book "The Conservative Enemy", had this to say:
We also have a right to expect from the Western peoples a more generous interest in the whole question of foreign aid. Up to now the marked liberalisation of attitudes in Western domestic policies has not been matched by greater altruism in international matters. No doubt, because foreigners provide a convenient scapegoat for personal or internal political difficulties, some element of selfish over-patriotism is always inevitable.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision because, if he does not, he will be making these foreigners scapegoats for our internal economic problems in a manner totally unworthy of a Labour Minister.

3.43 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: The speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) fully justifies the decision of my right hon. Friends to put down this subject for debate on Thursday when can have a longer time than we have now. I think that his quotations were very well taken, particularly his quotations from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman in what he said on the subject of the way this was done. The decision was taken in a thoroughly ham-handed fashion without adequate consultation


and sufficient transitional arrangements being made for students already on courses here. I was also glad that he nailed the complete untruth about the Government's action being in line with the Robbins recommendations. Anyone who has read the Robbins Report knows how strongly Lord Robbins himself and the rest of his Committee felt on the subject of discrimination of any kind. The calculations in the Report were based specifically on a definite number of overseas students in our universities.
I was also glad that the hon. Gentleman talked about the voluntary collections for students coming from Hungary after 1956. I have known many occasions when students have made voluntary collections for overseas students who were in some personal difficulty. In an intervention, I raised a point about graduates. This is of great importance and a point to which Lord Fulton drew attention in the debate in another place.
I remind the House—and the attendance here shows that we all take this matter seriously—that we should remember that at present only one-third of overseas students are financed from official sources. These students may not be so much affected, but many of the 20,000 or more unsponsored students will clearly suffer severely.
That is all I wish to say at the moment. The hon. Member's speech tonight has fully justified our decision to come back to this matter on Thursday, when we can have more time to debate it. I hope that the Minister of State may be able to tell us a little more precisely the details of what the Government propose. We very much hope that they will rescind this unhappy decision.

3.46 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The subject which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has raised tonight is to be debated at greater length on Thursday, and for that reason, and because the rules of order preclude my speaking for more than a few minutes, I am sure that he will not expect me to deal exhaustively with the speech which he has just made.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, endeavour to

catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Thursday so as to make as full a statement as possible. There are, however, one or two points which I might usefully deal with tonight in the short time that is available to me.
There has been a good deal of talk about discrimination, to which the hon. Member has himself unfortunately added his contribution tonight. The fact is that all fees are discriminatory when some students have to pay them while others are excused. If the new fees are discriminatory, it is only in the sense that existing fees are discriminatory, because different fees are payable by overseas students from those payable by home-based students.
The present system is one in which home-based students for the most part have their fees met from public funds. In practice, therefore, overseas students are almost alone in having to pay fees personally. If there is discrimination under the new system, so there was under the old. In neither case does it involve nationality or race. It relates solely to residence.
I am sure the whole House will agree that neither my right hon. Friend nor the Government, as they have shown by their action in the matter of overseas aid by increasing progressively since we have been in office the total amount made available for this high purpose, is in any way animated by the spirit of discrimination in this matter. It has been made clear, both in my right hon. Friend's statement to the House of 21st December, and subsequently, that the Government's decision was taken reluctantly. The need for economies in the financial year 1967–68 was, however, pressing and we could not ignore the rising costs of the concealed subsidy to overseas students involved in maintaining the existing level of fees. That is not to say that there is any intention of reducing this form of aid. The hon. Member talked as though we were stopping it and that no more overseas students would be able to come to Great Britain. That is completely at variance with the facts.
The fact is that the Government believe that this public subsidy must be brought under control. We believe that whatever Government were in power would now be faced with a need to bring


this into relation. The estimated level of subsidy in 1967–68, even with the increased fees, will still be as high as it was in 1965–66, and 80 per cent. up on the figure for 1961–62.
The Government recognise that there has been wide concern about possible hardship, particularly in the case of students from developing countries already embarked on courses in this country who have to rely on private sources—their families, their village and their own earnings—to finance their higher education. We share that concern. My right hon. Friend has stated on a number of occasions the possibility that there may be some cases of hardship. This is accepted, and a very close watch has been kept on this aspect of the matter. It was made clear when my right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the National Union of Students and the Scottish Union of Students at a joint meeting on 5th February. We had a long and very frank discussion of the problems as seen by the student bodies and they emphasised in particular their concern at the position of students from developing countries, and those who proceeded from one course to another.
We, for our part, made it plain that the Government are most willing to receive any evidence of hardship likely to arise from their decision as it affects this group, and the students' unions promised to provide this. The hon. Member in his speech tonight quoted a number of cases of hardship, and I can assure him most sincerely that my right hon. Friend will give full consideration to what he has said.
There are two ways in which the Government can and will help. First, in relation to those people who have come to this country planning to undertake a course of study over a number of years, for example "A" Levels followed by an undergraduate course. Our intention is that in such cases the qualification for the transitional increase of £50 a year should be liberally interpreted. My right hon. Friend will no doubt develop this point when he speaks on Thursday—

Mr. Steel: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt him, but before he goes on he has passed beyond the point where I hoped he would have said how much he expects this fund

to aid this cost and how much it will reduce—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a second speech at this stage.

Mr. Roberts: I must ask the hon. Member to allow me to cover as many of the points as I can. There are other points which my right hon. Friend will cover in detail when he speaks on Thursday.
The result of this action is likely to be that the number of cases in which students already in the country will be called upon to pay more than an increase of £50 a year will be small. Secondly, and this is important, as the Secretary of State announced last week, the Government intend to set up a transitional fund to enable grants to be made towards the increase in fees in cases where hardship can reasonably be claimed. This is designed very much with the needs of students from developing countries in mind. I know hon. Members are very anxious to have details of this fund and how it will be administered, but it is impossible for me to provide the details tonight. If I launched upon an examination of these details it would quite unhinge the very short speech time allows me to make.
These measures, taken together with the easement previously announced for students supported by United Kingdom Government grants and for students already on courses supported by the Governments of developing countries, will provide a very substantial cushion against the effects of increased fees on the most needy students. The net result will be to bring this very substantial aid into relation. It will not reduce it below the level of 1965, and it will represent a very substantial increase on 1961. We look forward in the future, as the resources of this country improve, to do better even than we have done in the past.
I do hope the hon. Member will take it from me that there is no discrimination here and that there is every intention to continue with this policy, which successive Governments have adhered to, of welcoming as many as possible of our friends from overseas to come to this country for their higher education.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Four o'clock a.m.